Prof. Mazi Chris Okoro V. Commissioner of Police, Enugu State & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of Enugu State High Court sitting at Enugu (hereinafter referred to as the lower Court) delivered by Hon. Justice I. A. Umezulike (OFR), C. J. on the 26th day of June, 2006. The applicant/appellant filed this suit for the enforcement of his fundamental rights with regard to his harassment, intimidation and unlawful seizure of his properties by the respondents/respondents, vide a notice of motion filed on the 25th day of February, 2005 wherein in his statement sought for the following reliefs:
(a)DECLARATION that the 1st Respondent?s seizure of Applicant?s certificates and academic gowns, upon the complaint of 2nd Respondent constitutes interference to the Applicant?s right under Sections 39 & 43 of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
(b) DECLARATION that the Applicant in exercise of his right under Section 39 of the Constitution (supra) is entitled to run a continuing education institute with appurtenant powers to issue certificates thereto and confer award honoris causa.
(c)DECLARATION that the 1st

1

Respondent?s arrest and detention of the Applicant, upon the complaint of the 2nd Respondent on allegation of award of fake certificates is a flagrant breach of Applicant?s right under Section 35 of the Constitution (supra).
(d)PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Respondent, his superiors, subordinates, servants, agents or privies from further interference in the exercise of Applicant?s constitutionals rights.
(e)N10 million against the Respondents, jointly and severally for breach of Applicant?s constitutional rights.?

Despite the service of requisite processes filed in the matter on the respondents and ample opportunities afforded them, they failed and/or neglected to respond or file a counter-affidavit against the appellant?s notice of motion or defence to his claim. Consequently, the lower court entered judgment in favour of the appellant in terms of the reliefs ?sought in the motion paper?, except relief (e).

The appellant being dissatisfied with the refusal to grant relief (e), thereby appealed against that decision to this Court, vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 22nd day of

2

September, 2006, wherein the appellant complained about the said judgment on the following grounds:
?A. The learned trial Chief judge erred in law when he failed to discharge the duty cast upon him having said ?I am therefore, of the view that they don?t wish to contest the suit. The Order of this Court is, therefore as prayed except relied (e) sought in the motion paper.? Notwithstanding the fact that in establishing the amount of damages claimed in a case where the evidence in Support is unchallenged, the burden on the Applicant/Cross-appellant is discharged upon minimum proof; occasioning thereby a miscarriage of justice.?

Pursuant to the said appeal, the appellant?s brief of argument was filed on the 10th day of June, 2015. The said brief was deemed by this Court as having been properly filed and duly served on the 25th day of February, 2016. The brief was prepared by R. C. Madu Esq. The 2nd respondent?s brief of argument was prepared by S. S. Liman of Nigeria Immigration Service, and was filed on the 10th day of January, 2013. It was deemed by this Court as having been properly filed and duly served on

3

the 25th day of February, 2016.

The learned counsel to the appellant in the appellant?s brief of argument formulated the following issue for the resolution of this appeal:
?Whether the learned trial judge was right in law by refusing to award the N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) general damages claimed by the Applicant/Cross-Appellant in view of the Supreme Court decision in Odogwu vs. Attorney ? General, Federation (2000) 2 HRLRA 82 @ 86, Ratio 2.?

The learned counsel to the 2nd respondent in the same vein formulated a single issue for resolution in the determination of this appeal. The issue is as follows:
?Whether the Cross – Appellant has actually proved his case before the trial Court as required by the law to warrant the grant of the Reliefs sought, particularly relief No. 2 (e) in which he asked for (Ten Million) N10,000,000.00 against the Respondents, jointly and severally for breach of Applicant?s constitutional rights.?

It is instructive to observe here that the 1st respondent in the same vein as was done at the lower Court, neither cause an appearance to be entered on its behalf