Mr. Imonikhe Murtala Vs Director General, State Security Service & Ors (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellant is a transporter and owner of Mack Truck with Registration number BDG 265 XG with his business address at No. 1 Creek Road, Apapa, Lagos.

On 21/01/2017, the appellants aforesaid Truck conveyed a 40 feet container batched inside the Apapa port premises to the Trade Fair Complex, Alaba, Ojo, Lagos.

The agent to the container owner was one Onyema. The truck was intercepted along the Apapa-Oshodi Expressway, and the truck, the driver and container were arrested by men of the 3rd and 4th respondents, on suspicion of carrying prohibited goods.

Upon examination of the container at the warehouse of the 3rd and 4th respondents, it was found to be loaded with, among other things, 661 pieces of new Automatic Pump Action Rifles concealed with other items.

Later, the 3rd and 4th respondents handed over the truck and the container to the 1st and 2nd respondents, in view of the security implication of the contents of the container.

The appellants efforts to retrieve his seized Mack Truck, as he was not charged with any criminal offence after the conclusion of investigation by both the Nigerian Customs Service and the State Security Service, met a brick wall.

He therefore resorted to the court to enforce his fundamental right through a Fundamental Right proceeding which he initiated against the respondents at the Federal High Court, Lagos (the lower court). The appellant sought, before that court, the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration that the continuing seizure of the applicants Mack Truck with Registration No. BDG 265 XG by the 1st to the 4th respondents without any disclosed criminal culpability, indictment or/and court order in respect of same, is wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.

2. An order of court releasing forthwith the said Mack Truck with Registration No. BDG 265 XG to the applicant.”

Parties joined issues by filing counter-affidavits, further affidavits as well as preliminary objection. In a considered judgment delivered on 16/03/2018, the Federal High Court, Coram: A.O. Faji, J., held under the preliminary objection that the 3rd and 4th respondents are not juristic persons.

On the merits of the application, the lower court dismissed the appellants action, holding that the seizure of the truck was lawful.Peeved by the decision of the lower court, the appellant appealed to this court, vide a notice of appeal predicated on seven grounds, dated and filed on 27/04/2018. The record of appeal was transmitted within time on 07/06/2018. Appellants brief of argument, settled by I.L. Mgbolu, Esq., was filed on 03/07/2018.

The 1st and 2nd respondents brief of argument, settled by P. Okerinmodun with M. Bajela, was filed on 01/02/2019, while the brief of the 3rd and 4th respondents, settled by S.A. Yakubu (Mrs.), was filed on 29/10/2018. The briefs of the two set of respondents were both deemed as properly filed and served on 07/03/2019.

Learned counsel formulated three issues for determination in the appellants brief of argument, to wit:

“1. Whether the court below was right in holding exhibit C i.e the information contained any evidence of the applicant/appellants involvement in a crime and for which sake the court below justified the continued seizure of the applicant/applicants truck by the respondents.