Obi Okudo V. Inspector-general of Police & Ors (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUSDAPHER, J.C.A.

Pursuant to provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979, the appellant herein Mr. Obi Okudo applied to the Court below for the following reliefs:-

“1. Declaration that the arrest and detention of the applicant from the 9th to the 16th February, 1983, by the Respondents, their servants and or agents is unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal.

2. Declaration that the continued arrest and detention of the applicant by the respondents is unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal.
3. Declaration that the respondents’ directive compelling the daily and indefinite attendance of the applicant at the Force C.I.D., Alagbon Close, Lagos, since 16/2/1983 is unconstitutional and illegal.
4. An order for the immediate and unconditional release of the applicant from the said arrest and detention.
5. Declaration that the applicant is entitled to compensation and apology from the police on account of the unlawful arrest and detention as aforesaid in accordance with Section 36(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
6. Order against the respondents for the payment to the applicant of N500,000.00k as special damages and aggravated and general compensation for the wanton in fraction of his fundamental right to personal liberty as aforesaid.”

The respondents filed counter-affidavits denying the allegations and the learned trial Judge called on the parties to give oral evidence. The applicant testified in proof of his allegations while the respondents called two witnesses. After the address of counsel, the learned trial Judge found for the applicant. He held in his judgment as follows:-

“The facts clearly show that the applicant detained for a period of 7 days continuously 9-16th of February, 1983 without being brought to Court, the detention was by the police. This was not denied but was attempted to be justified… I can see no justification for the detention of the applicant for such a period without bringing him to Court of law.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the detention of the applicant for the period 9th February to the 16th of February, 1983 was unlawful and I shall so declare … I hereby order that the respondents shall pay to the applicant a sum of N5,000.00k as compensation for loss of liberty by police for detaining him from the 9th February, 1983 to 16th February, 1983. Also that the Inspector General of Police should apologise to the applicant”

Mr. Obi Okudo, the applicant felt disgruntled with the award of only N5 ,000.00k as the compensation for the loss of his liberty and has appealed to this Court on one ground of appeal which reads:-

“That the award of damages by way of compensation to the Plaintiff in the sum of N5,000.00k is manifestly inadequate, unreasonable (sic) and failed to consider all the relevant circumstances and the principles ought therefore be enhanced.”

Three particulars in support of the ground were included in the ground. The particulars merely contained arguments on why this Court should enhance the quantum of damages. It is trite and well settled that a ground of appeal must be so succinctly couched and specifically described that the respondent will know the exact complaint against the judgment. It should avoid prolixity, repetition, narration or arguments. There should be no ambiguities or roundabout arguments in a ground of appeal. See Anie v. Ugagbe (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 402) 425 at 452. The particulars required for the nature of the error or misdirection alleged in relation to a ground of appeal should be the specific reasoning, findings or observations in the decision in question relating to the error or misdirection complained of. The particulars supplied should not be arguments or narratives that ought to be proffered in the brief or at the hearing of the appeal to establish the complaint against the judgment. The particulars should not also, as in this case, be independent complaints from the appeal itself but ancillary to it. See Atuyeye v. Ashamu (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 267. Globe Fishing Industries Ltd. v. Coker (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 162)265; Oge v. Ede (1995) 3NWLR (Pt.385) 564; Boogom v. Awan (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt 410) 692.

It is for the above that I strike out the particulars of the said ground of appeal and shall treat the appeal on the basis of the complaint against the quantum of damages only. I shall ignore the particulars which contain arguments and or narratives. See Order 3 rule 2 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 as amended.

Now, the respondents in this case did not appeal or file a brief, when the matter was called for hearing, after we satisfied ourselves that the respondents were served, we invoked our powers under Order 6 of the Rules of Court and decided to hear the appeal on the basis of the appellant’s complaint on his brief only.

Before dealing with the issue for determination, it is appropriate at this juncture to set out the facts. Put briefly, the appellant was the Editor of an Enugu Weekly Newspaper the Weekly Star. A story was published in the paper which the police decided to arrest and detain the appellant for the purposes of prosecuting him for alleged false publication. He was arrested by the police in Enugu on the 9/2/1983 and was flown to Lagos. He continued in detention until the 16/2/1983. The appellant was not charged to any Court for the alleged offence for false publication. That the appellant suffered a lot of indignities while under the detention. It was also alleged that the appellant (after his release on bail on the 16/2/1983) was directed to be reporting to Alagbon Close daily. He was reporting daily for a period of two weeks each day from 9.00a.m. Until 3.30p.m. It was after his lawyers have petitioned to the police and the Court that he stopped the daily visit to Alagbon Close. That was why he took the action under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. The respondents denied the allegations. In his judgment aforesaid, the learned trial Judge found that the appellant had been unlawfully detained for the period of between 9/2/1983 – 16/2/1983 and was therefore awarded as compensation the sum of N5,000.00k. The Inspector General of Police was also ordered to apologise to him.

Now, the issue formulated in respect of the single ground of appeal reads:-

“Whether the award of damages by way of compensation to the appellant in the sum of N5,000.00k is not manifestly inadequate and unreasonable in the light of the circumstances of this case.”