Commissioner of Police, Ondo State & Anor V. Festus Ade Obolo (1989)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SALAMI, J.C.A. 

This suit was commenced in the court below under the provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 made in pursuant to Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979. The applicant sought and obtained leave of the court below for enforcement of his right against the 1st and 2nd respondents who were incidentally the Commissioner of Police and Divisional Police Officer for Ondo State and Okitipupa respectively. He wanted the two officers to show cause why his fundamental rights were curtailed or violated by the two respondents. The applicant complained generally that whenever there was a case of armed robbery the police as a matter of routine would pick him up as a suspect, have him put in custody and subject him to treatments which berated his dignity. The applicant sought the following reliefs:-

(a) That he was unconstitutionally and unlawfully arrested and detained on divers dates without being informed of the offences he committed or charged and brought before a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) That his arrests and detentions on various dates were or constitute infraction of his fundamental rights guaranteed in Sections 31, 32(2), (3), (5)(a) and (b) of the 1979 Constitution.

(c) A claim for injunction restraining the respondent jointly and severally by themselves or their agents or servants or otherwise howsoever from repeating any of the infringements complained of.

(d) A claim for N500,000.00 against the defendants for general, exemplary or aggravated damages.

(e) A claim for public apology.

The two respondents attempted to show cause by filing a joint counter affidavit deposed to on 12th May, 1982. The order was made consequent upon the leave asked for by the applicant for the enforcement of his right to personal liberty guaranteed him under S.31(1)(a) and 32(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the 1979 Constitution and Order 1 rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979.

The case was tried on the affidavits of the parties and the learned trial Judge having heard arguments of counsel on behalf of either side found for the applicant in all his claims save the one for injunction and awarded him compensatory damages of N250.00. Both parties were dissatisfied with the decision of the court below and have appealed to this Court. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as appellants) have appealed against the decision on two grounds of appeal. The applicant (hereinafter referred to as respondent) is dissatisfied with the award of compensatory damages of N250.00 and has cross-appealed on quantum of damages.

The parties in pursuance of Order 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 filed briefs. The appellants filed appellant’s brief and cross-respondent’s brief. The respondent filed only one brief in which he met the appellants’ arguments and also advanced cross-appellant’s arguments. In the respondent’s brief, the respondent intimated that he would raise a preliminary objection. Neither the appellant’s nor cross-respondent’s brief particularly the latter replied to the objection.

In the preliminary objection, it was contended, on behalf of the respondent, that the two grounds of appeal formulated in the notice of appeal are incompetent. The reasons being that the particulars of misdirection alleged in ground (a) and or error of law alleged in ground (b) were not supplied under particulars of the respective grounds as required by the rules and practice of court. He referred the court to Order 3 rule 2 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 and argued that the demand of the sub-rule is mandatory and is not complied with by simply reproducing passages from the judgment or ruling of the court below. He contended that the appellants are duty bound to give full and substantial particulars of the error of law or misdirection alleged in the ground of appeal. He submitted that failure to supply relevant or appropriate particulars may be fatal to the appeal. He relied on the cases of Saka Atuyeye & Others v. Emmanuel O. Ashamu (1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.49) 267, 268, Anachuna Anyaoke & Others v. Dr. Felix G. Adi & Others (1986) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.31) 731, 733, and Ojiegbe v. Okwaranyia (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 605.

Mr. Onipede for the appellants in his oral reply to respondent’s preliminary objection submitted that the grounds of appeal are competent as they were got up strictly in compliance with Order 3 rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981.

There is no substance in the objection. The particulars of each ground is contained in the ground, each ground is properly got up without the need for separate particulars. In other words, what the appellant is complaining of is clearly stated in the ground. The so called particulars given, in each case, are, therefore, surplusage. The grounds of appeal shorn of their purported particulars are clearly drawn and have given the respondent adequate notice of what the appeal is all about. The grounds of appeal read thus:-

“(a) The learned trial Judge misdirected himself by holding that the respondent’s had no reasonable grounds to support the actions they took against the applicant when there was no such evidence before him.