Shedrack Ozide & Ors V. Geofrey Ewuzie & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of Imo State High Court in Suit No:HME/IM/2005, delivered on 01/02/2006 by Hon. Justice I.O. Agugua in favour of the 1st set of Respondents, who were the Applicants at the lower Court, seeking the enforcement of their fundamental Rights.

The lower Court had awarded N100,000.00 to the Applicants against the 1st to 3rd Respondents (Appellant’s) for breach of their (Applicants) fundamental rights, and N10,000 as cost. The Court also awarded N20,000.00 to Applicants against the 4th Respondent.

Applicants (now 1st set of Respondents) had prayed for enforcement of their fundamental rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and dignity of their human persons and for the sum of N300,000.00 as damages for the breach of their said rights. The motion ex-parte was heard on 25/1/2005 and leave granted for the filing of the Motion on Notice.

On being served with the processes, the 1st to 3rd Respondents (who are Appellants herein) filed a notice of preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the fundamental rights application. The parties filed their processes and filed written addresses. On 6/6/2005, when the Applicants addressed the Court, 1st to 3rd Respondents (Appellants) were represented by Ibegbulem Esq., and 4th and 5th Respondents were represented by E.A. Eze Esq (ASP).

Both Counsel for the Respondents asked for adjournment to address the Court (make their replies) and were obliged. When the case, finally, came up for reply on 12/12/05, Counsel for the Respondents were absent and the trial Court held:

“This matter is for Reply of (sic) Respondents’ Counsel, Applicants’ Counsel having addressed Court on 6/6/05. There being no reason for the absence of Respondents Counsel, I take it he has waived his right of address. Case is accordingly adjourned to 1/2/2006 for judgment.”

See page 79 of the Records. On that date (12/12/05) parties were present, except 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents.

The judgment was delivered on 1/2/06 and the said:

“Applicants have deposed to the fact that they are family men who left their businesses and their homes to attend to the police invitations as enumerated. There is nothing in these entire proceedings to show that the 4th Respondent (police officer) was acting with knowledge and directive of the 5th Respondent. 5th Respondent, I hold has no responsibility or connivance or condonation of these arbitrary acts of the 4th Respondent. Police Officers must be wary of being inveighed (sic) into a situation in which they find themselves becoming partisan agents of wrong doers in the pursuit of a private vendata…” (page 89 of the Records).

That is the judgment which Appellants appealed against, as per their Notice of appeal on pages 94 to 96 of the Records.

Appellants, however, filed Amended Notice of Appeal with the leave of this Court, granted on 10/5/12.

In the Amended Notice of Appeal, Appellants raised 3 grounds of appeal. They filed their brief on 14/5/12, also with the leave of Court, granted on 10/5/12, and formulated 2 issues for determination, as follows:

(1) Whether the Counter-affidavit of the Appellants were inconsistent in all material particular with that of the 2nd set of Respondents in this appeal to warrant the lower Court granting the reliefs sought by the 1st set of Respondents (Ground 1)