Economic And Financial Crimes Commission V. Alhaji Baba Inuwa & Anor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ISAIAH O. AKEJU, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, holden at Kaduna delivered on 25/10/2000 in Suit No.FHC/KD/CP/3/2004 which was instituted on 8/4/2004 by the 2nd respondent against the appellant and the 1st respondent for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights following the leave granted for that purpose.

The 2nd Respondent as the applicant had prayed the trial court for a declaration that his arrest at his house, 36 Bissau Crescent, Malali, Kaduna on 18/3/2004 by the appellant’s security agents and/or officers upon the complaint of the 1st respondent was illegal and unconstitutional having violated his fundamental rights; a declaration that his detention since 18/3/2004 was a violation of his fundamental rights and therefore unlawful and unconstitutional; N1 Million damages against the appellant and the 1st respondent (as the two respondents) jointly and severally for his unlawful and unconstitutional arrest and detention; an order admitting him to bail pending his arraignment in court, and an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Respondents, by themselves, servants, agents or privies from rearresting or detaining him in breach of his fundamental rights.

A supporting affidavit of 15 paragraphs, a statement, the Grounds for the reliefs sought, the verifying affidavit as well as the Affidavit of service were filed with the motion on Notice. The two respondents at the trial court filed their counter affidavit to the depositions of the applicant and the trial court granted bail to the 2nd respondent (applicant) at the proceedings of 29/4/04 in line with the 4th relief sought in his motion on Notice.

The motion was heard at the proceedings of 29/7/2004 (pages 35 – 49 of the record of appeal) at which the parties were represented by their respective learned counsel who presented arguments on their behalf, and in the judgment delivered on 25/10/2004 the trial court granted No. 2 of the reliefs and granted relief number 3 partially while numbers 1 and 5 were refused. All the claims against the 1st respondent were refused and dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants filed notice of appeal on 8/11/2004, with two grounds of appeal, (as amended on 23/1/14) and in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument prepared by Joshua Saidi Esq. of counsel and filed on 29.6.05 but deemed filed on 17/10/05 in prosecution of the appeal, two issues for determination were distilled from the two grounds of appeal as follows:-

1. Whether the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna had jurisdiction to entertain the Application for the enforcement of the fundamental right of the 2nd Respondent who was detained in the office of the appellant at Abuja outside Kaduna.
2. Assuming but without conceding that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application, whether the Lower Court used any parameter in arriving at N200,000 as general damages against the Appellant in favour of the 2nd Respondent.

In the Second Respondent’s Brief of Argument settled by P. Y. Garuba Esq. and filed on 24/11/05, the issues set down for determination are:

1. Whether the trial Lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Second Respondent’s Claim in its entirety.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in awarding the Second Respondent the sum of N200,000.00 as compensatory damages.

Thus the appellant and the 2nd respondent have in different words raised issues concerning the jurisdiction of the trial court and the propriety of the award of damages in the sum of N200,000.00. This appeal will be considered and determined on the basis of those two issues raised by the parties.

The 1st Respondent did not file any Brief of Argument. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on the first issue is that in so far as the trial court had refused the claim in respect of unlawful arrest, that Federal High Court, sitting in Kaduna had no jurisdiction in respect of the second claim concerning a detention that took place in Abuja.

The learned counsel submitted that in matters of fundamental rights enforcement the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is restricted to the one located in the place where the infringement is said to have occurred relying on Section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the cases of TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE [1989] 4 NWLR [Pt.117] 517; MIL. ADMIN. BENUE STATE V. ABAYILO [2001] 5 NWLR [Pt.705] 19; MIL. ADM. OF TARABA STATE V. JEN [2001] 1 NWLR [Pt.694] 416; INAH V. UKOI [2001] 9 NWLR [Pt.773] 563:

It was submitted that the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna does not share any geographical jurisdiction with Abuja where the detention took place, therefore the Court in Kaduna lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the proper order was to strike out the matter as any order made without jurisdiction is void abinitio, citing FALOYE V.OMOSENI [2001] 9 NWLR [Pt.190].

The learned counsel submitted that the appellant can raise the issue of jurisdiction which was not raised at the Lower Court in this court for the first time with or without leave, citing GAJI V. PAYE [2003] 10 NWLR [Pt.776] 12.

The 2nd respondent has contended on this issue that Order 11 Rules 1-4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 contain provisions governing the place of institution and trial of suits, and in the absence of a specific rule governing Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure), there under, the proper rule to rely on is Order 11 Rule 1 (9) which requires “all other suits” to be commenced and determined in the Judicial Division in which the defendant resides or carries on business or in which the cause of action arose.

According to the learned counsel, the cause of action in this case arose in Kaduna where the officers and men of the appellant arrested the 2nd respondent and took him to Abuja where he was subsequently detained. It was submitted that the cause of action emanated from Kaduna within the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal High Court Kaduna and both the arrest and subsequent detention of the 2nd respondent fall within the same transaction and cannot be disjunctive, citing UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD. V. I. K. MARTINS NIG. LTD. [2000] 2 SCNJ 224.