Alexander Madiebo & Ors V. Godwin Nwachukwu Nwankwo (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GALADIMA, J.C.A.

This is an interlocutory appeal, against the ruling of the High Court of Lagos in suit No. ID/57M/97, presided over by Adeyinka, J., delivered on the 5th day of December, 1997.

The facts of this case are rather straight forward. The respondent, an insurance executive was based in Lagos. The 1st-4th appellants, are his cousins. Following allegations made to the police, concerning the conduct of the respondent, he was arrested by the police on 26/1/97, in his office in Lagos, and detained at the Barracks Police Station, Surulere, Lagos. He was denied bail on the ground, that he committed an undisclosed offence at Awka, in Anambra State. However, he was later informed, that his arrest was as a result of complaint, brought by the appellant over land matter.

On his return to Lagos, the respondent brought ex-parte application and obtained the order of the lower court for leave, to apply for an order enforcing his fundamental rights. Following this, he now brought a motion on notice for a declaration, that his arrest and detention was illegal and unconstitutional and an infringement of his right to personal dignity and personal liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The 1st-4th appellants, filed a motion seeking to dismiss the case on the ground that the dispute arose out of land matter in Awka, Anambra State, and as such the Lagos State High Court lacked jurisdiction.

In his considered ruling, the learned trial Judge held that, the matter in dispute had nothing to do with the declaration of ownership, to land in Awka, Anambra State, outside the jurisdiction of this court. He however, held that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the case, as it concerned the respondent’s arrest and first detention which took place within the jurisdiction of the court.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants appealed to this court on the following 3 grounds, as contained in the notice of appeal:

“1. The learned trial judge erred in law by failing to consider adequately, all the issues raised in the respondent’s facts in support of his application and the appellant’s motion dated 3rd October, 1997, with the supporting affidavit opposing the jurisdiction of the court, to entertain the application and thus, came to a wrong conclusion that he had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s application, for the enforcement of a breach of his fundamental rights.

2. The learned trial judge erred in law, when he took into consideration only the issue relating to the arrest and detention of the respondent in Lagos, and Awka, without regard to the fundamental issue raised by the respondent, in his facts in support and the appellant’s motion in opposition and thereby, came to a wrong conclusion that he had jurisdiction to try the matter.
3. The ruling/judgment of the learned trial Court is against the weight of evidence.”

Parties filed their briefs of argument in due compliance with the rules of this court. From the 3 grounds of appeal, the following 2 issues were raised for determination:

“1. Whether the learned trial judge had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s (respondent’s) application for the enforcement or securing enforcement of the alleged breach of his fundamental rights as formulated by the respondent?

2. Whether the learned trial judge ought to have declined jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s application in view of the reliefs sought and the facts in support of issues raised in the respondents application?”

The respondent also formulated two issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the learned trial judge has jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs sought by the respondent in the application for the enforcement of his fundamental rights?

2. Whether in resolving the issue of jurisdiction, the learned trial judge was right in limiting himself to the complaints of the arrest and detention raised by the respondent without considering the issues raised in the objection filed by the appellant?”

On 31/2/2001, at the hearing of the appeal, each counsel adopted his brief of argument and said he had nothing to add or emphasize.

This appeal, once again brings into focus the jurisdiction of the High Court in an application for the enforcement of fundamental rights.