CHIEF SUNDAY EFFIONG UDO VS CHIEF SUNDAY KOFEE ESSIEN

CORAM

PARTIES

1.    CHIEF SUNDAY EFFIONG UDO

2.    MR ELIJA ESSIEN

3.    SOLOMON SUNDAY SOLOMON

4.    UDO NSEABASI SOLOMON

5. OFFICER IN CHARGE STATE CID, POLICE HEADQUATERS, IKOT AKPAN ABIA

6. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, STATE POLICE COMMAND IKOT AKPAN ABIA

APPELLANTS 

1.    CHIEF SUNDAY KOFEE ESSIEN

2.    TOM ISAAC UDO

3.    ENO ELIJAH ESSIEN

4.    JOSEPH JAMES ESSIEN

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Applicants/Respondents instituted an action against the Respondents/Appellants at the High Court seeking some declaration for the infringement of their Fundamental Rights, which was allegedly violated by the Respondents/Appellants. At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge entered judgment for the Applicants/Respondents. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Respondents/Appellants have appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Allowed.

ISSUES

1. Whether in the light of the facts and evidence before the court, the complaint of the 1st Appellant to the 6th Appellant had disclosed a prima facie case against the Respondents to justify their arrest.?

2. Whether the failure of the learned trial judge to evaluate the evidence before the court properly has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.?

3. Whether Exhibit AE 1 was admissible in law and having regard to the fact that the learned trial judge speculated on where the Respondents were arrested and the number of days or period they were detained and where.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES – THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES LIES ON THE PERSON WHO WOULD FAIL IF NO EVIDENCE AT ALL IS ADDUCED IN THE CASE.

“In civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the person who will fail if no evidence was adduced by either side. See Sections. 132, 137 Evidence Act 2011. Manni v. Shanono (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt.969) 132 @ 156-157 H.7, Archibong v. Ita (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt.858) 590 @ 646-647 H.2.Evidence should be cogent and strong enough to sustain the case. See Ogoejeofo v. Ogoejeofo (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt.966) 205 @ 221 H.5, UBA Plc. V. Lawal Osula (2003) FWLR (Pt.178) 1080 @ 1088 H.3” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE –STATUS OF AN UNSIGNED AND UNDATED DOCUMENT.

“It is the law that unsigned and undated document has no evidential value. See Global Soaps & Detergent Ind. Ltd v. NAFDAC (2011) All FWLR (Pt.599) 1025 @ 1047.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS – A PARTY ENFORCING HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF AN ARREST MUST PROVE HIS DETENTION AND ITS DURATION.

“In an application for the enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights, particularly where arrest is alleged, the Applicant must prove specific detention and duration. It is not a matter for speculation.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES – IN CIVIL CASES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON HE WHO ASSERTS WHILE THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS ON A BALANCE OF PROBABILITY

“In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who asserts a fact, to prove same, for he who asserts must prove. The standard of proof required is on a preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. Longe Vs. FBN Plc (2006) 3 NWLR pt 967 page 228, Daodu vs. NNPC (1998) pt 538 page 355, Kala vs. Potiskun (1998) 3 NWLR pt 540 page 1, Braimah Vs. Abasi (1998) 13 NWLR pt 581, page 167”. PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

INVESTIGATION OF CRIMES – NEITHER THE POLICE NOR A CITIZEN WHO REPORTS A PRIMA FACIE CASE WILL BE LIABLE FOR A BREACH OF A RIGHT TO ARREST

‘‘Indeed the law is settled that:
When a citizen reports a matter to the police or any law enforcement agency for the exercise of their discretion, including the discretion to investigate, neither the police nor the citizen would be liable for the breach of a right of arrest if the report to the police discloses a prima facie case against the Applicant. See Bassey V. Afia(2010) All FWLR (Pt.531) 1477 @ 1500-1501 H.5, Ezeadukwa V. Maduka(1997) 8 NWLR (Pt.5180) 635.’’PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

RIGHT OF THE CITIZENRY – IT IS THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTS TO THE POLICE

“Every citizen of this country has a right to report to the Police where he honestly believes that a crime has been committed or a crime is about to be committed. See Onah Vs. Okenwa (supra).” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

COURT ORDER – A PARTY SEEKING A COURT ORDER MUST SHOW THAT HE IS WORTHY OF SUCH ORDER.

“The law is that, a party who seeks a court order must do all in its power to establish that it deserves such an order. See NACHPN v. MHWUN (2010) 2 NSCR 101 @ 138.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

AVERMENTS IN AFFIDAVITS – AVERMENTS IN AN AFFIDAVIT NOT DIRECTLY DENIED ARE DEEMED ADMITTED

“The law is that any averment in an affidavit which has not clearly, unequivocally and directly been denied is deemed admitted. See F.A.A.N v. W.E.S. (Nig) Ltd (2011) All FWLR (pt.574) 42 @ 55 H.3.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A PARTY – DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH HOW HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN BREACHED

“It is settled law that it is not enough for a plaintiff to merely state that an act is illegal and unconstitutional. He must show how his civil rights and obligations have been breached or threatened.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE – IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO PROPERLY EVALUATE THE AFFIDAVIT BEFORE IT IN REACHING A DECISION.

“Where a court is called upon to exercise its discretion or to decide an issue based on the affidavit evidence before it, it is duty bound to evaluate the affidavit before reaching a decision one way or another.FGN v. AIC Ltd (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt.970) 337 @ 356 H.2 & 3.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

CIVIC DUTY OF CITIZENS – IT IS THE DUTY OF CITIZENS TO REPORT ANY SUSPECTED CRIMINAL OFFENCE TO THE POLICE FOR INVESTIGATION.

“Every citizen has a duty to report a suspected criminal offence to the Police for investigation and apprehension. See Afribank (Nig) Plc Vs. Onyima (2004) 2 NWLR pt 858 page 654.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

SCOPE OF DUTY OF THE POLICE – WHATEVER THE POLICE DOES TO MAINTAIN PEACE IN A COMMUNITY IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR DUTY

‘‘Whatever the police does to maintain the peace of a community is generally within their scope of duty. See Milad Lagos State Vs. Ojukwu (supra).’’PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

2. Evidence Act, 2011

3. Traditional Rulers Law, Cap. 134 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT