Charles Umezinne V. Attorney-general Of The Federation & Ors (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

At the Federal High Court, holden at Lagos, the Appellant was the applicant seeking, against the respondents herein, the enforcement of his fundamental right to personal liberty. He had alleged that he was arrested, detained and continually detained at Force CID Alagbon, lkoyi Lagos without any charge and/or being informed of the offence he allegedly committed. He was arrested by officers of National Agency for Food and Drug Administration (NAFDAC) on 11th August, 2005 at about 6.45pm on the Third Mainland Bridge, Lagos while driving in the same car with his lawyer, Babatunde Kehinde. As at the date he commenced the proceedings at the Federal High Court he was still being held in the Police Custody. It was alleged, in the affidavit supporting his application for enforcement of his fundamental right, that the officers of NAFDAC demanded that he paid them N500,000.00 “for laboratory analysis of some samples of cosmetic products which were neither found” in his custody nor possession and which he did not admit the ownership of. The deponent of the supporting affidavit further averred that

1

the applicant’s counsel, Babatunde Kehinde, demanded formally to know if the payment of the N500,000.00 was the pre-condition for the bail of the applicant. The 4th respondent did not reply the letter.

The Respondents filed Counter-Affidavit. The counter-affidavit was deposed to by the 5th respondent. The averments in the affidavit supporting the application were frontally and vehemently denied by the officers of NAFDAC. It was averred, inter alia, in the Counter-Affidavit that one Obi Onyeama and his wife “reported that the applicant herein was the owner of the goods stocked” in the warehouse managed by Mr. and Mrs. Obi Onyeama. And that the appellant, made statement on 18th August, 2005 wherein “he admitted importing the cosmetic products inside a container of tiles and that the import documents falsely indicated that the container was full of tiles while it actually contained both tiles and cosmetics.”

The Federal High Court, upon hearing the application brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, declared that the detention of the appellant from 11th August to 26th August, 2005 “without being arraigned before a

2

competent Court of law constitutes a violation of the (appellant’s) fundamental right guaranteed under Section 35 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999”. Consequently, it made an order “directing the respondents to tender a written apology to the (Appellant) for the unlawful detention from 11/8/05 to 26/8/05”. The trial Federal High Court, however, dismissed reliefs 2, 3, 4 & 5 on the Originating Motion. The appellant’s appeal to the Lower Court against the decision of the Federal High Court was directed, specifically, against that part of the decision of the dismissing the appellant’s prayers –

I. that the seizure and/or the continued retention of both the appellant’s expired and valid International Passport were illegal and/or unconstitutional; and

II. award of N500,000.00 or general damages for wrongful detention.

The Notice of Appeal at the Lower Court was filed on 12th June, 2007 – apparently out of time. Section 24 (2) (b) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, prescribed 90 days for appealing the final decision of the High Court of Appeal, at pages 215 – 221 of the record, the 91st day after the

3

decision delivered on 12th June 2007.

The Record of Appeal was transmitted by the Registrar of the Federal High Court on 14th April, 2008, outside the 60 days prescribed by the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007. The Record transmitted on 14th April, 2008 was in fact transmitted after 10 months, from the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Two months after 14th April, 2008 (about 12 months after the filing of the Notice of Appeal) the supplementary Record was transmitted on 30th June, 2008. The appellant relishing in tardiness, took no steps to regularise the Records which, of course, enjoyed the presumption of regularity under Section 150 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2004 (now Section 168 (1) Evidence Act 2011). By that provision, any judicial or official act shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular is presumed to have been done in compliance with the formal requisites for its validity. Accordingly, the substantive and the supplementary records remain valid until set aside by the Court of Appeal.