Oba Tijani Akinloye (Ojomu of Ajiran) V. Dali Adelakun (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IGE, J.C.A.

The Appellant/Applicant filed only one ground of appeal which reads thus:

“1. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that Section 38 of the Fundamental Human Rights Provisions in the 1979 Constitution can be enforced against a private person by means of the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rule.

Particulars of Error:

a. The provisions of the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Rules can only be employed against the Government and its agencies.

Further grounds of appeal shall be filed upon receipt of a certified true copy of the Ruling of the lower court.”

The Defendant/Applicant has now filed a motion on Notice asking for leave to amend the Notice of appeal dated 8th day of October, 1996 by substituting the proposed amended Notice of appeal annexed to the affidavit in support of this motion. Applicant also wants court to deem the Amended Notice of Appeal a copy of which is attached to the affidavit in support of the motion as properly filed.

Applicant’s third prayer is for extension of time to file the Appellant’s Brief.

Applicant has filed an affidavit of 8 paragraphs in support of this application and has attached a copy of the proposed amended notice of appeal. The grounds of appeal in the proposed amended notice read thus:-

“(1) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that Section 38 of the Fundamental Human Rights Provisions in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, is enforceable between citizens of Nigeria.

Particulars of Error:

(a) The right reserved in Chapter IV of the Constitution seeks to protect the citizen against unlawful executive actions.

(b) The provisions of Section 38 and Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 confer, a right only on the citizens of the country against executive or government action.

(2) The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on the facts, and erred in law when he ruled that the entire suit was not an abuse of the process of the court.