“Let me hasten to state that though the Respondent failed to file a brief, the appeal must and will still be considered on the merits. The effect of the failure by the Respondent to file a brief is that the Respondent is deemed to have admitted the truth of the facts stated in the Appellant’s Briefs, in so far as the said facts are borne out by the Record of Appeal. The Appellant still has to succeed or fail on the strength of his case. In the words of Ogbuagu, JSC in Unity Bank Plc vs. Bouari (2008) LPELR (3411) 1 at 24-25: “…the failure of a Respondent to file a reply brief is immaterial. This is because, an Appellant, will succeed on the strength of his case. But a Respondent will be deemed to have admitted the truth of everything stated in the Appellant’s Brief in so far as such is borne out by the Records. In other words, it is not automatic. An Appellant must succeed or fail on his own brief.” See also Echere vs. Ezirike (2006) LPELR (1000) 1 at 20, Cameroon Airlines vs. Otutuizu (2011) LPELR (827) 1 at 17 and Uleke vs. Kakwa (2013) LPELR (20819) 1 at 7-8. –

“Nigeria has adopted the precepts of constitutionalism; the rule of law is the lodestar for all authorities, persons and institutions under our constitutional democracy. Fundamental rights are rights which stand above the ordinary laws of the land. They are in fact antecedent to the political society itself. Fundamental rights, which have been described as the minimum living standard for civilized humanity have their origin dating back to the Magna Carta, the Royal Charter of political rights given to rebellious English Barons by King John on June 19, 1215. They are rights which embrace and encompass the concepts of liberty and justice. The fundamental rights have been enshrined in the Constitution so that the rights can be inalienable and immutable to the extent of the non-immutability of the Constitution itself. See Ransome Kuti vs. A-G Federation (1985) 7 NWLR (PT 6) 211 at 229-231. It is the fact of the enshrinement of these fundamental rights in the Constitution that confers the fundamental rights the status of being over and above other human rights: Uzoukwu vs. Ezeonu II (1991) 6 NWLR (PT 200) 708 at 761. –

“The question of infringement of fundamental rights is largely a question of fact and does not depend so much on the dexterous submissions from the forensic arsenal of learned counsel on the law. It is fact based. So it is the facts of the matter as disclosed in the processes filed that are examined, analysed and evaluated, to see if the fundamental rights of the Appellant were eviscerated or otherwise dealt with in a manner that is contrary to the constitutional and other provisions on the fundamental rights of an individual. The law remains rudimentary that he who asserts must prove, so the Appellant had the onus of proving by credible affidavit evidence that his fundamental rights were breached. See Onah vs. Okenwa (2010) 7 NWLR (PT 1194) 512 at 535-536 and Onwuamadike vs. IGP (2018) LPELR (46039) 1 at 20-22”. –

“Now, it is settled law that the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value thereto is the primary duty of the trial Court. The attitude of an appellate Court in respect of evaluation of evidence by a trial Court is that in deciding whether or not the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence, the essential focus is on whether the trial Court made proper findings and reached the correct judgment upon the facts before it. Put differently, the duty of the appellate Court is to go into the evidence evaluated by the trial Court to see whether there is any perversity in the findings. It is abecedarian that where a trial Court has carried out its assignment satisfactorily, an appellate Court should be left with no option but to affirm such a decision. See generally Aiyeola vs. Pedro (2014) LPELR (22915) 1 at 37, Nnadozie vs. Mbagwu (2008) LPELR (2055) 1 at 27 and Anyegwu vs. Onuche (2009) LPELR (521) 1 at 13”. –

“The crux of the complaint in this matter arising from the issue distilled for determination is on the evaluation of evidence by the lower Court; with the Appellant contending that flowing from the affidavit evidence, the decision of the lower Court dismissing the Appellant’s case is not justified in law. It bears restating that the burden is on the Appellant to prove that his fundamental rights were breached; this burden remains on him to discharge irrespective of whether the Respondent filed any processes, or if the Appellant perceives that the Respondent’s affidavit evidence was contradictory. The law remains that the Appellant is to succeed on the strength of his case”. –

“The law is settled that where facts averred is weak, tenuous, insufficient or feeble then it would amount to a case of failure of proof. See A.G. of Anambra State vs. A.G. Federation (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 266) 557 @ 1611, 1697 G-H”. –