Oteri V. Okorodudu & Anor (1970)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

LEWIS, J.S.C.

The plaintiff’s claim before the Warri Chief Magistrate in suit MW /287/62 read:-
“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants jointly and severally is for the sum of 250pounds (Two hundred and fifty pounds) being general damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s false imprisonment of the plaintiff at Warri and Ajamagha village, Warri, within the Warri Magisterial District.

At all material times the plaintiff was an employee of the Post and Telegraphs Department, Nigeria, Agbadu, Central Urhobo while the 1st and 2nd defendants were messenger and rate clerk respectively of the Warri Divisional Council, Ekurede, Warri.

The 1st defendant, on the 25th day of September, 1962, at about 7 a.m., without lawful justification, arrested the plaintiff at Igbudu, Warri upon a false charge, then made by the 1st defendant, of failing to pay tax or rate in respect of the current financial year, and forcibly dragged and took the plaintiff to the ‘Grade C’ Customary Court, Ajamagha village, Warri.
The 1st and 2nd defendants on the date aforementioned hereon then detained the plaintiff or caused the plaintiff to be detained against his will for about five hours in the ‘Grade C’ Customary Court cell or custody, Ajamagha village, Warri, until bail was granted at about 6 p.m.

The plaintiff was eventually discharged on the 4th day of October, 1962, when the President of the ‘Grade C’ Customary Court, Ajamagha, Warri dismissed the charge. By reason of the said premises the plaintiff has suffered damages and claims as above.

See also  Nimota Oluwo & Ors V. R.o. Adebowale (1964) LLJR-SC

The defendants have failed and/or neglected to pay in spite of repeated demands made on them by the plaintiff.”, and on the 9th of May, 1964 the Chief Magistrate, Mr F. O. M. Atake (as he then was), gave judgement for the plaintiff for 100pounds damages and 35 guineas costs against both defendants jointly and severally. In his judgement the learned Chief Magistrate made fmdings of fact stating inter alia:
“I here set out those facts which I accept. The plaintiff a P. and T. worker at Agbarho, outside the jurisdication of the Tax Area of the Warri Divisional Council came to Warri to his departmental provincial headquarters to receive his salary on 25-9-62. At Egbudu, i.e. at the entrance into Warri Township, the 1st defendant a messenger attached to the Rate Clerk of the Counsil saw him and demanded to know of him if he, the plaintiff, had paid his current tax.

The plaintiff told him that he was a P. and T. worker and that he was going to his headquarters to receive his wages; that he pays tax under the P.A.Y.E. system which is to say that tax is deducted from his salary monthly. He had with him at the time his P. and T. hat, rain-cape, a union card on him is fixed his photograph in P. and T. uniform. He showed all to the 1st defendant.

But the 1st defendant insisted that he must show a tax receipt or else he was arresting and taking him to court. The plaintiff then offered to hire a taxi and carry the 1st defendant to his provincial head of department who would further satisfy the 1st defendant on the issue. The 1st defendant refused to accept the offer. Fortunately a man Ope was passing by and the plaintiff hailed on him and requested him to report the matter to his head of department.

See also  Albert Oluwole Obikoya V. Peter Ezenwa & Ors. (1973) LLJR-SC

Before this man returned to Egbudu, 1st defendant had taken plaintiff into custody and had taken him to 2nd defendant at the Rating Office at Ajamogha.”
The learned Chief Magistrate went on later in his judgement to say:-
“Once imprisonment is proved it is for the defendants to justify it.

The defendants have accordingly attempted to justify this imprisonment by saying that they have a right to arrest and detain the plaintiff being local government officers. That may well be so and indeed that is the only defence they raised which is pertinent in my view as I entirely reject their story and that of their witnesses whether they be court presidents or messengers. They all appear to me to be lying to save the skins of fellow workers.

Mr Akporiaye for the defendants has contended that the test is a sub-jective one: once the defendants say that they have reasons to suspect that the plaintiff had not paid his tax, their reasons were not to be asked for and examined. I am afraid I disagree with him. The test must be an objective one: the test is that of the reasonable man. Would a reasonable man acting with prudence and caution have come to the view that the plaintiff had not paid his tax I think not.

Note that both defendants know only too well on their own admission that P. and T. workers pay as they earn. There was before the defendants, a P and T. hat, rain-cape, union card carrying the photograph of the plaintiff in P. and T. uniform.

See also  Madam Margaret Ezeokafor V. Emmanuel Ezeilo (1999) LLJR-SC

There was the request by the plaintiff to take 1st defendant to the head of department to prove that he the plaintiff is a P. and T. worker and that he pays tax as he earns. The defendants turned all these down. All the defendants could do is arrest on reasonable suspicion. But it is not open to them deliberately to be blind to all efforts by the suspect to dislodge their suspicions and to prove that he in fact commits no offence whatsoever.

I am satisfied that the defendants were acting out of pique.”
On appeal to the High Court Begho, J. (as he then was) allowed the appeal and set aside the award of damages and costs and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim without awarding costs.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *