Alphonsus Obinwa V. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OWOADE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of R. I. E. Odu, J. sitting at the Calabar High Court delivered on 20th July, 2000 in suit No. C/MSC/292/96. The applicant/appellant brought the action before the lower court under the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 1979. By this, the applicant/appellant sought leave of the lower Court to enforce his right to personal liberty under section 32 of the 1979 Constitution (now section 34 of the 1999 Constitution).

In his application for leave, the applicant also sought interim orders against the 1st-3rd respondents to desist from further harassing or arresting him and to further detain his vehicle which was the subject matter of the transaction which led to the action. The reliefs sought by the applicant before the lower Court in the statement filed in support of the application were as follows:

“a) Declaration that the detention of the applicant by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents was illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.

b) The enforcement and protection of the applicant’s fundamental rights as enshrined in section 32(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

c) Injunction restraining the respondents and, or their agents, privies from continuing to intimidate, harass or seize or threatening to detain the applicant, seize or detain any of the applicant’s vehicles or property at all.

d) Special damages assessed at N72, 660.00 (Seventy-two Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty naira) against the respondents jointly and severally.

(e) Exemplary damages of N5, 000, 000.00 (Five Million Naira) against the respondents’ jointly and severally.”

The 1st-3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit at the lower court as against the applicant’s/appellant’s affidavit in support of his motion on notice but the 4th respondent did not file any counter-affidavit. However, at the close of submissions by counsel, the learned counsel to the 4th respondent adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for the 1st-3rd respondent. The brief facts of the case were that the applicant claimed to have bought the 4th respondent’s vehicle but that after putting the vehicle into usable condition, the 4th respondent turned round to claim that the transaction between them was a pledge and later lodged a report to the 1st-3rd respondents alleging crimes of obtaining by false pretences and threat to his life that is the 4th respondent. And that the 4th respondent used his connections with the 3rd respondent to detain him, some of the members of his household and the vehicle in issue. It was not in dispute that the applicant was released after 3 days of incarceration and that the vehicle was detained for 15 days. The 1st-3rd respondents claimed that the detention of the applicant/appellant and his vehicle were inevitable in the course of police investigations into the alleged crimes.

At the end of the case, the learned trial judge delivered a considered ruling and held at pages 75 – 76 of the record as follows:

“Having said thus, I hold the view that the detention of the applicant was lawful. I have found that the respondent sold the bus C 20 OD 5154 J to the applicant, it was not a pledge. It is also my view that the respondent carried the police to detain the applicants acted somewhat within the law when they arrested and detained the applicant. In the circumstances I hereby make the following orders:

1) The respondents and/or their agents, privies are hereby restrained from continuing to intimidate, harass or threaten to detain C20 bus OD 5154 J.

2) The applicant’s vehicle was detained until released by the court. The applicant was using the vehicle for commercial purposes. I award N10, 000.00 as special damages against the 4th respondent only.

4) General damages against the 4th respondent are assessed at Thirty Thousand Naira Only (N30, 000.00).