CORAM

---

Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

Joseph Eyo Ekanem Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. THE GOVERNOR OF DELTA STATE OF NIGERIA

2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF DELTA STATE

3. SENIOR VEHICLE INSPECTION OFFICER (UGHELLI NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF DELTA STATE)

 

APPELLANTS 

---

OLUKUNLE OGHENEOVO EDUN, ESQ

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LEGISLATION, LOCUS STANDI, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, STATUTE

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent at the High Court of Delta State, commenced an action by an originating summons, wherein he claimed against the Appellant’s/ Respondents a declaration that by virtue of the provision of 2, 3,4, 5, and 6 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, the 1st – 3rd Defendants (being officers/bodies) are under a legal obligation to provide the Applicant with the information requested for relating to the income, expenditure, sponsorship of pilgrims and legal basis for the establishment of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as particularly spelt out in Applicant’s letter dated September 13th 2013; a declaration that the failure of the 1st- 3rd Respondents to provide the Applicant with the information requested is a breach of the provisions of Section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011. They sought an order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to provide the Applicant with up to date information requested, as stated in Applicants letter dated September 13th 2013, particularly with respect to the provision of a comprehensive account of all the monies allotted to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from 2010 to date and the budgetary provisions for same; the full list of pilgrims (including government officials) sponsored on pilgrimage by the Delta State Government from 2010 to date; the criteria for selecting past/potential/prospective pilgrims for sponsorship by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents; the legal basis for the allocation of public funds to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in the face of obvious constitutional provisions prohibiting same, amongst other reliefs.

The Respondent essentially challenged the constitutionality of the establishment of the 2nd and 3rd Appellants (2nd and 3rd Respondent at the trial Court) in the face of the secularity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as enshrined in Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution. Prior to initiating the action at the trial Court, the Respondent made a request pursuant to the enabling provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, regarding the operations, funding, list and names of sponsored pilgrims, modalities for selecting pilgrims and so forth, which request was ignored/refused, and this compelled the Respondent seeking judicial determination of the legal obligation of the Appellants. All the parties filed their respective position papers and written address. In a considered judgment, the learned trial judge granted the originating summons application in part and further “directed that all further releases/funding to the 2nd and 3rd Respondent be and hereby to cease until the Order to provide information in relief F is complied with within two (2) weeks of this Order”.

The Respondent filed a Cross Appeal challenging the refusal of the learned trial judge to grant some reliefs in the Originating Summons, which questioned the constitutionality of the creation of the entities and activities of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellants herein, lodged a Notice of Appeal upon 2 Grounds of Appeal.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed; Cross Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

 Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the respondent has locus standi to bring this suit predicated on the freedom of Information Act, 2011.

 

 Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the freedom of information Act, 2011 is applicable to the Delta State Government of Nigeria.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DECISION OF COURT – DUTY OF COURT WHEN IT IS FACED WITH TWO CONFLICTING DECISIONS

---

“The position of the law, however, is that where a Court is faced with two conflicting decisions given by it, it shall be taken that the later decision has overtaken the earlier one or departed therefrom, even if it does not over Rule it specifically.

See Lokpobiri Vs. Ogola (SC) (2017) 7 NWLR (pt 1563) 36. PER M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A

 

---

EXERCISE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS – INSTANCE WHEN A PRIVATE PERSON MAY ENFORCE PUBLIC RIGHTS

---

 

“It should be stated that Pats Achonolu, JCA (of blessed memory had carefully and with a great sense of responsibility chosen his words … thus “I think …….Where peace, justice and orderliness are threatened, then public rights may be enforced by a private person.

In the case of private law, the learned jurist recognized that it was only in “some cases”. There is, therefore, no absolute right and entitlement in the Respondent to bring the action, more so under the Freedom of Information Act 2011.

Even then, there must exist an infraction of the right or a threat of its being violated in matters affecting the public law. PER M. AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended

Evidence Act, 2004.

Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007, LFN Act NO. 3

Freedom of Information Act 2011

 

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT