MR. MICHAEL OJO V THE GOVERNMENT OF KADUNA STATE & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-06) Legalpedia 61124 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Kaduna

Tue Jun 3, 2025

Suit Number: CA/K/216/2022

CORAM

Onyekachi Aja Otisi-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muslim Sule Hassan-Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

MR. MICHAEL OJO

APPELLANTS

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KADUNA STATE

2. THE GOVERNOR OF KADUNA STATE

3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER OF JUSTICE KADUNA STATE

4. AISHA DIKKO ESQ.

5. CHRIS UMAR ESQ. (The Solicitor General of Kaduna State)

6. SAMUEL JACOB MADAKI ESQ.

7. THE NIGERIA POLICE FORCE

8. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

9. THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION

10. THE COMMISSION OF POLICE, KADUNA STATE

11. DSP. AHMED D.

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, LANDLORD AND TENANT LAW, PROPERTY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, EVIDENCE LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, APPEAL

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant assisted his aged father, a retired military personnel, to conduct a bid on 30th May 2017 for a property known as Block L2, Kapwa Quarters, Kabala Costain, Kaduna, after it was auctioned by the Kaduna State Government following a Daily Trust publication of 27th February 2017. The Appellant’s father became the highest bidder and paid a draft of N247,664.30, being 10% of the property price, which had not been reimbursed by the Respondents.

Subsequently, the 1st Respondent made attempts to recover houses within the Kapwa Quarters without recourse to due process of law. The Appellant’s father instructed his counsel to file Suit No. KDH/KAD/904/2017 against the 1st and 2nd Respondents, who were aware of the suit as counsels from the Ministry of Justice had entered appearance and filed defense.

Despite the pending suit and a motion for interlocutory injunction, on 17th August 2020, the Respondents invaded the Appellant’s house and forcefully evicted him. During this process, the Appellant was allegedly dragged, slapped, beaten, assaulted, humiliated, embarrassed and dehumanized. The roof, zinc, doors, and windows of the house were removed, and the Appellant was detained for two days at Operation Yaki Police Station without food or water.

The Appellant filed a fundamental rights enforcement action seeking declarations of rights violations, restraining orders, public apology, and N100,000,000 in damages. The Federal High Court declined jurisdiction, holding that the reliefs sought were not purely fundamental rights claims but ancillary to other claims. The Appellant appealed this decision.

HELD

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The Court of Appeal set aside the ruling of the trial court dated 24th January 2022.

3. The Court held that the Appellant’s case disclosed a prima facie case for enforcement of fundamental rights to privacy of life, dignity of human person and freedom of movement.

4. The Court found that the principal relief sought was for enforcement of fundamental rights and not ancillary to other claims.

5. The case was remitted back to the Federal High Court, Kaduna Division for reassignment to another Judge to be heard on the merit with an order of accelerated hearing.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not illegal and forceful eviction is breach of fundamental human right and the Appellant’s principal claim before the lower Court borders on a breach of fundamental Human Rights.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CLAIMS – TEST FOR PRINCIPAL VERSUS ANCILLARY RELIEF:

“However, for a claim to qualify as falling under fundamental rights, it must be clear that the principal relief is for the enforcement or for securing the enforcement of a fundamental right and not, from the nature of the claim, to redress a grievance that is ancillary to the principal relief which itself is not ipso facto a claim of a fundamental right.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROCEDURE – LIBERAL APPROACH TO ORIGINATING PROCESS:

“The manner in which the Court is approached for the enforcement of a fundamental right is hardly objectionable once it is clear that the originating Court process seeks redress for the infringement of the right so guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court process could come by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules or by originating summons or indeed by writ of summons.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT – AVAILABILITY OF DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEFS:

“It is not in doubt that declaratory and other reliefs can be sought and obtained to enforce and protect fundamental rights by filing action in a High Court.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROCEDURE – CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS:

“Therefore it follows without saying that the Appellant can rightly seek restraining injunctive orders as well as damages and apologies as he rightly did which are incident or ancillary or consequential reliefs to the fundamental right breach.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

PROPERTY RIGHTS – FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY:

“It is without doubt a fundamental right to own a property/house as contended by the Appellant’s counsel, and while the respondent reserves the right to revoke that right, this must be done in accordance with the law, and not in self-help with attendance consequence of slapping, beating, detaining and removing the roof, windows and doors to the house of the Appellant.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT – TEST FOR DETERMINING PRINCIPAL CLAIM:

“This is in the fact of Suit No. KDH/KAD/904/2017 demanding the 1st and 2nd Respondents to release the house of the Appellant’s father which was auctioned to them. The facts narrated by the Appellant’s affidavit is however peculiar to the fact that he was slapped, beaten to pulp, dragged and detained, and the roof, windows, and doors to his father’s property where he resides in the midst of doing all this actions by the respondents were removed.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

PRIMA FACIE CASE – FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT:

“Now this Court is determining the merit of the reliefs of breach of fundamental rights claimed by the Appellant, but on the face of this facts and the reliefs claimed by the Appellant, prima facie, a case of breach of fundamental right is the main claim before the trial Court as stated by the Apex Court in the case of FRN v. Ifegwu cited above. It is clear that once breach of fundamental right is the main claim, then the action can be brought under the fundamental right enforcement rules.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CLAIMS – EXAMINATION OF RELIEFS AND FACTS:

“I have gone through the reliefs sought and I say they are all fundamental right claims protected under Chapter 4 of the Constitution. The next fact to consider is whether the facts grounding the Appellant’s claims are not based on breach of fundamental right, and my answer is that it is clear that fact narrated by the Appellant show a clear disregard to the law and disregard to the person of the Appellant regarding his person, his privacy and right to own property.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT – DETERMINATION OF PRINCIPAL CLAIM:

“I will answer this question by holding that from my review of the reliefs, facts and circumstance of the Appellant’s claim which is the only relevant document to be examine in the circumstance, I find that the case of the Appellant discloses a prima facie case for enforcement of his fundamental right to privacy of life, dignity of human person and freedom of movement.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VERSUS LAND LAW – DISTINCTION OF PRINCIPAL CLAIM:

“The principal claim of the Appellant is for enforcement of a fundamental right and not for tenancy or land law. Though the circumstances in this matter have incidents relating to title to land, what the Appellant principally claims in this case is the aspect of enforcement of human right when the Respondents slapped, beat to a pulp, barged into the house and in the process removed roofing sheets, also went as far as locking the Appellant up at the police station.” – Per ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROCEDURE – CONTRAVENTION VERSUS ANCILLARY CLAIMS:

“In other words, where the alleged breach of a fundamental right is ancillary or incidental to the substantive claim of the ordinary civil or common law nature, it is incompetent to constitute the claim as one for the enforcement of a fundamental right.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT – CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE:

“The reliefs of the Appellant borders on Section 34 for violation of right to dignity of human person, Section 37, the right to home, family life and privacy, and Section 43 on the right to own a property. All these rights are guaranteed under Chapter 4 of the Constitution as constitutional guaranteed fundamental rights of every Nigerian which the Constitution protects jealously.” – Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.