Mr. Edet Asuquo Nkanga & Ors V. Obong Effiong E. Etefia & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

This is in respect of an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Uyo in the Uyo Judicial Division delivered by ANDREW E. OKON J. on the 19th November, 2012 in respect of an application for the enforcement of fundamental rights brought by the respondents against the appellants.

In the said proceedings, the respondents alleging that their rights had been infringed by the appellants sought the following reliefs from the trial Court:
1. An order restraining the respondents by themselves, servants, agents or privies or whosoever acting on their behalf from arresting or further re-arresting, intimidating, harassing, inviting or re-inviting the applicant to and detaining them at any police station wherever in Nigeria in connection with the subject matter of this case.
2. A declaration:
(a) That the act of subjecting the appellants to arrest or threats to arrest, harassment, intimidation, assaults and abuses is a gross violation of the applicants, fundamental rights as enshrined in Sections 34, 35 and 37 of the

1

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
(b) That it is unlawful for the 1st respondent to employ the services of the 2nd-5th respondents to unlawfully, maliciously and baselessly arrest and detain the applicants in relation to a purely civil matter and compelling the applicants to continue to visit the 5th respondent?s office, without preferring any charge against the applicants.
(c) That the totality of the action of the respondents is illegal, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, unlawful, unconstitutional and therefore void.
(d) That the respondents jointly and severely should pay the applicants the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten million Naira) only being exemplary damages for the infraction of the fundamental rights of the applicants,
(e) That the respondents should pay the applicants the sum of N250,000.00 being the money illegally, fraudulently and forcefully obtained from the applicants in lieu of granting bail to the applicants.

Upon being served, the respondents filed affidavit depositions upon which the parties joined issues at the end of which their counsel adopted their written addresses. In a considered

2

judgment, the learned trial Judge exonerated the 2nd-6th appellant but found against the 1st appellant and ordered him to pay compensation and costs to the respondents.

Apparently dissatisfied with the turn of events, the appellants invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court via a notice of appeal filed on 31st January 2013 containing 6 grounds. The said notice of appeal was subsequently amended via the amended notice of appeal filed on 17th March, 2014 equally containing 6 grounds.

The listing of the parties in the amended notice of appeal is particularly confounding seeing that the 2nd -6th appellants expressed no dissatisfaction with the judgment of the trial Court and both the initial notice of appeal as well as the amended notice of appeal indicate that the dissatisfied party was the 1st appellant. That the 2nd-6th appellants were co-respondents with the 1st appellant at the trial Court did not automatically translate to their being co-appellants when they did not complain against the judgment as can be gleaned from the grounds of appeal.
However, since the briefs were filed and the appeal contested as the parties were

3

listed in the notice of appeal, I shall for ease of reference not alter this. Such an unnecessary mix-up should however be avoided by counsel.

At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Ukpong the learned counsel for the appellants adopted their brief filed on 18th August, 2014 but deemed properly filed and served on 24th March, 2014 as well as the appellants’ reply brief filed on the 10th November, 2015 as the arguments of the appellants in this appeal.

Although the respondents were unrepresented at the hearing of the appeal, their brief filed on the 10th October, 2014 settled by Victor Esu Esq. was deemed adopted as their arguments in this appeal pursuant to Order 18, Rule 9 (4) of the Rules of this Court.