CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

NIGERIA POLICE FORCE

---

THE STATE

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

A Police Constable Danasabe Waziri was posted to Area Command/Secretariat Junction in Jalingo Local Government Area of Taraba State, on special duty. He signed and collected from the office an assault rifle with 15 live ammunitions. While on the special duty, vehicles were stopped and searched; then came one Elder Iroham with a pick up van. PC Danasabe was said to have stood behind Elder with his rifle and the next thing that was heard was a gunshot, then Elder came out from his vehicle shouting that he was shot and he has been killed. Elder later died at Federal Medical Center, Jalingo. PC Danasabe was arraigned, tried and convicted by the Taraba State High Court, and consequently sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment. The Nigeria Police Force was ordered to pay N200, 000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) as compensation to the family of late Elder Iroham. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal contending that by the decision, the trial court employed and applied the doctrine of vicarious liability in criminal case; that there no vicarious liability under the realm of criminal law, as transfer of criminal liability is unknown to the Nigerian Criminal Justice System or jurisprudence.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the trial Court wrongly applied the principle of vicarious liability in a criminal case. Whether or not the order for compensation made suo moto by the trial Court against the Appellants when they were not made parties before the trial Court and without affording them the opportunity to be heard was made without jurisdiction

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

VICARIOUS LIABILITY – DEFINITION OF THE TERM VICARIOUS LIABILITY

---

“The term vicarious liability has been defined by the Apex Court in Ifeanyi Chukwu (Osondu) Company Ltd. v. Soleh Bonieh (Nig.) Ltd. (2000) LPELR-1432 (SC) as follows:-
The term, vicarious liability has, rightly in my view been defined to mean the case of one person taking the place of another in so far as liability is concerned.

---

VICARIOUS LIABILITY – WHETHER THERE EXIST VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW

---

“In the case of Yusuf v. F.R.N. (2016) LPELR 41811 (CA), this Court Per Oho JCA held thus:-
The settled position of the law is that there is no transfer criminal liability or Agency under the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. See Dina vs. Daniel (2010) 11 NWLR (PT.1204) 137. See also the case of APC V. PDP & ORS (2015) 4 SCM 48 AT 99 where the Supreme Court, per FABIYI, JSC had this to say on the subject: It is basic there is no vicarious liability in the realm of criminal law. Anyone who contravenes the law should carry his own cross. Learned Appellant Counsels insistence on the application of the rules of Agency, i.e that the Appellant as an agent acting on behalf of a disclosed principal; Beal Construction limited, reminds this Court of the proverbial drowning man who would catch at anything including a straw in order to stay afloat just to stay alive. What counsel had done in essence in this insistence on having the Court apply the principle of the law of Agency which is applicable only in civil matters as opposed to where crimes have been committee, is to insist on having the Court misapply the principles of law at the expense of the justice of this case.

---

ORDER FOR COMPENSATION –PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE ORDER FOR COMPENSATION

---

In the case of Mustapha v. F.R.N (2018) LPELR 46565 (CA) this Court held thus:
It is also a requirement for the order of compensation that same must have been sought by the prosecution at the trial, with evidence adduced to warrant the granting of same to the victim of the crime. See Ademola v. Sodipo (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 253) 251. The prosecution did not proffer evidence to warrant the granting of the order for payment of compensation to the victim of the crime, nor was there any application for same by the Mainstream Bank Plc. In view of the foregoing, I find and hold that the lower Court did not rightly order for the payment of compensation to Mainstream Bank Plc in accordance with the law. The order for payment of N13Million to the Mainstream Bank Plc, was therefore not validly made. Same is hereby set aside. I resolve issue 2 in favour of the appellant. The appeal therefore partially succeeds, only to the extent that the order for payment of N13 Million to the Mainstream Bank Plc, is hereby set aside.
Based on the above decision of this Court, the lower Court was in error when it awarded compensation without an application to that effect by the Prosecution. Furthermore, the lower Court awarded the compensation against the 1st Appellant who was not made a party before it. The order for compensation was therefore made against the 1st Appellant without jurisdiction. In the case of Deputy Sherriff, Kaduna State High Court v. Keystone Bank Ltd. & Anor. (Supra), this Court held thus:
The law is that an order cannot be made against a person who is not a party to the proceedings. See Babatola v. Aladejana (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 728) 597 at 615 Paras. B-D.

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT