Anthony Esekhaigbe V. Federal Road Safety Commission (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OBIETONBARA DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is in respect of the judgment of the Lower Court in respect of the appellant’s bus which was impounded by the Respondent. In the appellant’s Statement of Claim before the Lower Court he alleged that his Ford Transit Bus with Registration Number BG 502 MUS was impounded by some officers and men of the Respondent along Idiroko Road after Atan Town in Ogun State on the grounds that he had an expired driver’s license and was using a blue coloured plate number not meant to be used for passenger carrying vehicles.

In the course of the bus being impounded, the appellant claimed that the bus was damaged. He also pleaded that consequent on the impounding of the vehicle,his business collapsed, he was given notice to quit the premises he used for his factory and his children were withdrawn from school due to lack of funds to pay their school fees.

He therefore sought from the Lower Court a declaratory relief that the seizure of his bus was unlawful,illegal, null and void. He also claimed special and general damages. In the alternative, he prayed the Lower Court for the sum of N2 million as general damages for the wrongful detention/conversion of his bus.

After hearing the case presented by both parties the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to support, the claim that the appellant’s bus was unlawfully or wrongfully seized. He also found no evidence that the appellant was improperly deprived of the use of his bus. He therefore refused to grant any of the appellant’s reliefs. He felt satisfied to dismiss the appellant’s claim in their entirety and did so.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, which judgment was delivered on 31/10/2007, the appellant on 31/1/2008 filed a Notice of Appeal. In it, he gave the following six grounds on which the judgment of the Lower Court can be faulted.

1. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held at page 19 of the judgment as follows:

“Under S.3 of the National Road Traffic Regulations a staff bus is not registered the same way as a vehicle carrying goods and staff. And a vehicle carrying goods and staff is registered as a commercial vehicle under S.3(g) while a staff bus is registered under S.3(k) and described as a “private omnibus used for the free conveyance of employees, Therefore is created confusion with the documents presented by, the plaintiff. These inconsistencies were never resolved.

A careful study of the Regulations pertaining to Hackney/Stage carriage license particularly Regulations 39 & 40 of the National Road Traffic Regulations 2004 shows clearly that a Hackney/Stage carriage license is issued to commercial vehicles and for the vehicles to be used for a private purpose.

2. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held at pages 24 and 25 of the judgment as follows:

“Having carefully gone through the Federal Road Safety Commission Act (Cap.141) as amended, I am in no doubt that the defendant is empowered amongst other deterrent to impound any vehicle by which an offence under the Act is reasonably suspected to have been committed. The defendants therefore did not act ultra vires its powers when it impounded plaintiff’s vehicle on the 11th of December, 2003.”

3. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held at page 24 of the judgment as follows:

“The Laws of the Federation 2004 was passed into law by the National Assembly on the 24th, of May, 2007 the same day it repealed the 1990 Laws of the Federation Act. This was with no retroactive effect. It meant that as at the time the cause of action arose on the 11th of December, 2003 and this action was filed on the 25th of April, 2004, Laws of Federation 2004 had not come into operation and could therefore not be applied to this case”.

4. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held at page 24 of the judgment that the Laws of the Federation 2004 court not be applied to this case and upon that holding retried on S.11(5) (h) (sic) of the Federal Road Safety Act 141 LFN 1990 to hold that the defendant had power to impound the vehicle of the plaintiff.
5. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held at page 26 of the judgment as follows:

“In the circumstance I also find the claim for special and general damages not established, I therefore make no declarations in respect of any of the reliefs.”

6. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

I do not consider it necessary to state in this judgment, the particulars of error detailed under each ground of appeal. In any case the sixth ground of appeal which is an omnibus ground, did not as is normally the case, have any particulars of error.

The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was settled by Olumide Akinimi who also adopted and relied on it when the appeal was argued on 18/9/14. The Brief of Argument was filed on 16/10/08 but deemed pursuant to an order of this court, as having been property filed and served on 14/1/2009. Appellant’s learned counsel distilled four issues for determination in the appeal. They are –

1. Whether the appellant’s Ford Transit Bus was registered or being used as a commercial vehicle. (This issue is based on ground 1 of the grounds of appeal.)
2. Whether the respondent acted ultra-vires its powers when it impounded the appellant’s vehicle on the 11th of December 2003. (This issue is based on ground 2 of the grounds of appeal.)
3. Whether the Federal Road safety commission Act Cap F 19 Laws of the Federation 2007 is applicable in this case. (This ground is distilled from grounds 3 and 4 of the grounds of appeal);
4. Whether the learned trial judge is not enjoined by law to assess damages whether or not the claim of the plaintiff succeeds (No ground of appeal was identified as being the basis of this issue).

It is the law that issues for determination as well as arguments in an appeal should be based on the grounds of appeal duly filed. Consequently, any part of a brief of argument which does not arise directly from any of the grounds of appeal is incompetent. See Oje v. Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR part 185 p.267. Since issue 4 above does not arise from any of the grounds of appeal, no argument can be urged in respect of it. The said issue 4 is incompetent and is hereby disregarded. That leaves only three competent issues formulated by the appellant.