CORAM
Tijjani Abubakar Justice, Supreme Court of Nigeria
Jummai Hannatu Sankey -JUSTICE Supreme Court of Nigeria
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein -JUSTICE Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru – JUSTICE Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Baba Idris -JUSTICE Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
TOTAL EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION NIGERIA LIMITED
APPELLANTS
1. MR. AZUBUIKE OKWU
2. MR. NNAMDI FELIX OKWU
3. MR. GOODLUCK ALETE
4. MR. CHIKERE OPUTA
5. MR. KUTI JOHN
6. MR. CHISA KUTI
7. MR. SURAY ALBADRI
8. DARCET INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
9. MR. KENNETH NJOKU
10. THE GOC NIGERIA ARMY, BORI CAMP
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGENCY LAW, TORT LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The case originated from a fundamental rights enforcement application filed by the 1st to 6th Respondents against the Appellant and others, seeking declarations and orders for breach of their rights to personal liberty and freedom from inhuman/degrading treatment. The Respondents alleged that soldiers led by the 9th Respondent, acting on instructions from the 7th Respondent (a project manager of the 8th Respondent, who was the Appellant’s contractor), assaulted them and detained the 1st Respondent’s vehicle at the Appellant’s premises. The trial court awarded damages of N230 million against all respondents jointly and severally. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, leading to this appeal.
HELD
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside.
3. The Supreme Court held that the Respondents failed to establish vicarious liability against the Appellant.
4. The claims against the Appellant were dismissed.
5. Parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in affirming the decision as the action was incompetent ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction?
2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the trial court’s finding of liability when the Respondents failed to discharge their burden of proof?
3. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the award of N230 million damages?
4. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Appellant did not deny that the 8th to 10th Respondents were its agents?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
“A party desirous of overturning the decision of a lower Court can only do so by appealing against that decision. And it is irrelevant that the challenge to the said judgment is on an issue of jurisdiction.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
INTERPRETATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RULES
“The law is settled that in interpreting the Constitution, mere technical rules on the interpretation of statutes are, to some extent, inadmissible in order to avoid defeating the principles of government enshrined in the Constitution.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
JOINT APPLICATIONS – PERMISSIBILITY
“It is not correct law that two or more persons cannot jointly file one application for the enforcement of their respective fundamental rights alleged to have been breached or violated by a common act of one or more respondents.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY – REQUIREMENTS
“The concept of vicarious liability is the imposition of liability on a person for the actionable conduct of another, based solely on a relationship between the two persons.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS – INTERFERENCE
“This Court has reiterated in a plethora of decided cases that it does not make it a habit of disturbing the concurrent findings of lower Courts except in exceptional circumstances, such as where the Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings are perverse and have resulted in miscarriage of justice.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE – EFFECT
“Where credible and believable positive facts in an affidavit are not challenged by contrary positive facts, the facts are deemed true, correct and admitted and should be accepted and acted upon by the Court.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR LIABILITY
“The general rule is that an employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the acts of the contractor in the course of the job for which he is engaged.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
BURDEN OF PROOF – VICARIOUS LIABILITY
“It is settled law that the onus is on a party alleging vicarious liability to plead and prove facts in support of the allegation.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
BRIEF WRITING – PURPOSE
“Litigation is not a long essay competition where success is determined by the length of the brief of arguments and it has been said that repetition does not improve an argument.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
PRINCIPAL’S LIABILITY – SCOPE
“A principal will only be vicariously liable for the acts of the agent where they were done in fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the agency.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
PROPER DEFENDANT – REQUIREMENT
“A claimant cannot be allowed to use a set of facts giving him a right to sue to pursue an innocent passer-by and he must sue the person who caused him injury and not another.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
PROOF OF AGENCY – REQUIREMENT
“The mere assertion that someone is a registered contractor of an employer does not, and cannot, automatically lead to the conclusion that there exists between that employer and the registered contractor a principal/agent relationship.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION – APPROACH
“The Court should always adopt a broad and liberal approach in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009
3. Interpretation Act 1964
4. Supreme Court Rule