MR ISAAC ISAIAH & ORS VS THE LAGOS STATE TASK FORCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SPECIAL OFFENCES UNIT & ORS
March 30, 2025ECOBANK TRANSNATIONAL INCORPORATED V BROAD COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ORS
March 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 04115
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Mon Nov 23, 2020
Suit Number: CA/LAG/CV/1111/2019
CORAM
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR
PARTIES
1. MR RICHARD MBA 2. MR AKINDURO LAWSON 3.CHIEF RAHEEM ABEGUNDE OJE 4.MR BEN OBIUWEVBI
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants were residents and landlords in Atinporome Community in Badagry, Lagos State. On 14th December, 2013, the agents of the Respondents wrote a letter to the Appellants to vacate their houses and land. The Appellants replied same through their solicitor intimating them that there was a subsisting court order to maintain status quo on the land. At about 4.30am of 16th December. 2013, heavily armed policemen and officials of the task force, with 16 black maria vehicles and 12 bulldozers, invaded the community and demolished the Appellants’ houses alongside over 500 other houses without any court order. The Appellants alleged that they were arrested, tortured and detained on 16th and 17th December, 2013. They claimed that the demolition made them lose their valuables, homeless, businesses and health. Sequel to these, the Appellants beseeched the lower court, via an originating motion filed on 3rd June, 2016 under the Fundamental Rights(Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, and tabled against the Respondents the following reliefs: a declaration that the arrest, torture and detention of the applicants by the agents of the Respondents for two (2) days at the station/unit of the 3rd Respondent from the 16th of December 2013 to 17th December, 2013 without cause or any court order is wrongful, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void as it violates the Applicants fundamental rights as enshrined under Section 33, 34, 35, 36 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, amongst other reliefs. Upon the conclusion of trial, the lower court upheld the preliminary objection, declined jurisdiction to determine the suit, and transferred the matter to the Lagos State High Court for adjudication. The Appellants were dissatisfied with the decision and have appealed against same praying the court for an order hearing the Appellants case on the merits and granting all the reliefs sought by the Appellants in the originating motion dated 31st May 2016.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
ISSUES: Whether the learned trial judge was right when he declined jurisdiction to entertain the appellants fundamental rights enforcement suit against the respondents.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – ATTITUDE OF COURT TO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
“The law compels the courts to accord primier attention to issue of jurisdiction, which is numero uno in adjudication, when raised in any proceedings, see Okwu v. Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Co. Dev. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193”,
JURISDICTION – MEANING OF JURISDICTION
“Jurisdiction, a mantra in adjudication, connotes the authority/power of a court to determine a dispute submitted to it by contending parties in any proceeding, see Ajamole v. Yaduat (No. 1) (1991) 5 SCNJ 172; Mobil Pro. Co. Untltd. v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1; Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 IM SLR 300; Ebhodagbe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 472; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144; A.-G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017)1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1”.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – WHEN IS A COURT VESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE ON A MATTER?
“A court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: “1. it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction”, see Modukolu v. Nkemdilim (2006) 2 LC 2081961) NSCC (vol. 2) 374 at 379, per Bairamian F. J., Tukur v. Taraba State (1997) 6 SCNJ 81; Daro v. UBN (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164; Okereke v. Yar’Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100); Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; Okpe v. Fan Milk Plc. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282; Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 455; Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 387. The three ingredients must co-exist in order to infuse jurisdiction in a court”.
“Where a court is drained of the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceeding germinating from it, no matter the quantum of diligence, dexterity, artistry, sophistry, transparency and objectivity injected into it, will be marooned in the intractable web of nullity, see Elugbe v. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319; Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 328; Garba v. Mohammed (supra); Isah v. INEC (supra)”.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – TEST FOR MEASURING THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OF A COURT
“Nota bene, the case-law has endorsed, in toto, a statement of claim as the major barometer to be used by the court to measure the presence or absence of its jurisdiction, see Akine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446; A.D.H. Ltd. v. A.T. Ltd. (2006) NWLR (Pt. 989) 635; Oni v. Cadbury (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Ladoja v. Ajimobi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87; B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. O.H.M.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Yar’adua v. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 213; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 2) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124; Isah v. INEC (supra); Lau v. PDP (supra); Azubuogu v. Oranezi (supra); Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386; A.-G, Fed. v. A.-G., Anambra State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 314; Roe Ltd. v. UNN (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 420; F.U.T., Minna v. Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 176; A.-G., Lagos State v. Eko Hotels (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 518. In an action commenced by dint of originating summons/motion, as in this case, the affidavit in support serves as the statement of claim, see Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60; Owuru v. Adigwu (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 1; CBN v. Aribo (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 130. Relief, too, is one of the determinants of jurisdiction of court, see Onwudiwe v. FRN (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 988) 382; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; PDP v. Oranezi (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 245; Gbileve v. Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1433) 394”.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT PROCEDURE – WHETHER A MAIN CLAIM WHICH IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT CAN BE SOUGHT UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT PROCEDURE
“It is trite and elementary law, that where the main/primary right/claim is not a fundamental right, or where a fundamental right is an ancillary to another claim, then it is improper to seek relief in a court under the sanctuary of fundamental right procedure as such a situation impinges on the jurisdiction of the court, see Sea Trucks (Nig.) Ltd. v. Anigboro (supra); WAEC v. Adeyanuju (supra); Tukur v. Govt., Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Jack v. UNAM (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 865) 208; Amale v. Sokoto Local Govt. (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1292) 181; Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017) 11 NWLR (pt. 1577) 410, Nwachukwu v. Nwachukwu (2018) 17 NWLR(pt. 1648) 357”.
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT – WHETHER OR NOT ABREACH OF AN ANCILLARY RIGHT CAN BE ENFORCED UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES, 1979
“Interestingly, the case-law has since evolved/invented the acceptable judicial formula which the courts use, as the yardstick/template, to gauge the presence or absence of main or anciliary rights. In Sea Trucks (Nig.) Ltd v. Anigboro (2011) 3 NWHR (Pt.696) 159, Karibi-Whyte, JSC, incisively and insightfully, declared:
The correct approach in a claim for the enforcement of fundamental rights is to examine the reliefs sought, the grounds for such relief, and the facts relied upon. Where the facts relied upon disclose a breach of the fundamental right of the applicant as the basis of the claim, there is here a redress through the enforcement of such rights through the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979. However, where the alleged breach of right is ancillary or incidental to the main grievance or complaint, it is incompetent to proceed under the rules. This is because the right, if any, violated, is not synonymous with the substantive claim which is the subject- matter of the action. Enforcement of the right per-se cannot resolve the substantive claim which is any case different”.
INJUNCTIVE CLAIM – STATUS OF AN INJUNCTIVE CLAIM
“In the eyes of the law, an injunctive claim has no independent life of its own. Its success or failure is parasitic on that of the declaratory relief, see Fagunwa v. Adibi (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 903) 544. Put differently, it is bears/wears the hallmark of tributary relief that is tied to the apron strings of the main claim. A court that is equipped with jurisdiction to hear the main claim is clothed with the vires to try the auxiliary relief and vice versa. This traces its pedigree to the Latin Maxim. Accesoruim non-ducit sed sequitus suum principale, id est, that which is incidental does not lead, but follows its principal, see Tukur v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWHR (Phill 7) 517”.
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – COURTS WITH JURISDICTION IN DETERMINING MATTERS BORDERING ON ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
“My noble Lords, it is now settled law, beyond any per adventure of doubts, that the High Court of a State and the Federal High Court share concurrent jurisdiction in a matter bordering on enforcement of fundamental rights as donated and ordained in section 46 (1) of the Constitution, as amended, irrespective of the parties therein, see Jack v. UNAM (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt.865) 208; F.U.T, Minna v. Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 1761; Recently, in EFCC v. Wolfgang Reinl (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1730) 489 at 514 and 515 the Supreme Court, per Kekere – Ekun, JSC, re-echoed the inflexible position of this law in these illuminating words:
…So long as the enforcement of the applicant’s fundamental right is the main claim in the suit and not an ancillary claim, the Federal High Court and State High Courts, including the High Court of the FCT, have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain it. See Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (supra).
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ACTION – NATURE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ACTION
“In the interest of emphasis, a fundamental right action is peculiar and special with its own rules for its adjudication, see Onyekwuluje v. Benue State Govt., (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1484) 40 per Peter-Odili, JSC. Put differently, it is, to a large extent, sui generis. The jurisdiction donated to the lower court by the prescription of section 46 (1) of the Constitution, as amended, displayed earlier, is a special jurisdictional while the one under section 251 (1) of the selfsame Constitution, as amended, is general jurisdiction. It is a notorious principle of law, that where there is a special provision in a statute/legislation, a later general provision, in the same law, is not to be interpreted as derogating from what has been specially provided for individually save an intention to do so is unambiguously declared. In the Latin days of the law, it was encapsulated in the Maxims: Generali specialibus non derogrant: general things do not derogate from special things; or Specilia generalibus derogrant- special things derogate from general one, see Schroder& CO. v. Major& Co. Ltd.(1989) 2 SCNJ 210/(1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 1; Tukur v. Govt., of Gongola State (supra)Abubakar v. Nasamu (No. 1) 2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) 40; Adebayo v. PDP (2013) 17 NWLR (pt. 1382) 1; A-G, Lagos State v. A-G. Fed. (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1412) 217; Ardo v. Nyako (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1416) 591; Jumbo United Co. Ltd. v. Leadway Ass. Co. Ltd. (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1536) 439; PDP v. Umeh (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) 272; A.-G., Bauchi State v. A.-G., Fed (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1648) 299.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended|
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009|
