Proffessor Shehu Ahmed Maigadi & Ors v. The Inspector General Of Police & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal emanates from the decision of the Federal High Court Sokoto Division sitting at Sokoto, delivered by Hon. J. K. Omotosho J. on 17th May, 2022 in suit No.: FHC/S/SC/14/2021 refusing to grant the reliefs sought by the appellants in fundamental rights enforcement proceeding the appellants initiated against the respondents. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the appellants appealed to this honourable court via a notice of appeal filed 30th day of May, 2023.

Brief statement of facts

The appellants embarked on a procession within Sokoto City and the respondents dispatched their officers to fore-stall any likely breach of peace that may pop up. Upon the procession reaching a point known as Madam Caro in Mabera Area, commotion broke out between the appellants’ group and the people of the area which necessitated the intervention of the respondents’ officers.

The appellants instituted action at the lower court claiming sundry reliefs against the respondents on the ground that officers deployed to the place harassed the appellants and gunned down some of their members.

The learned trial Judge in his findings, held that the appellants failed to discharge the burden placed on them by law to prove their case. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellants filed this appeal.

Issues for determination

In the appellants’ brief of argument dated 10th day of October, 2022 and filed 30th day of January, 2023, the appellants, through their counsel Mr. A. U. Ajodo Esq., submitted three issues for the determination of this appeal:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was not in error of law when he declined ascription of probative value to exhibits central to the trial in matter litigated on affidavit evidence on grounds that they are computer generated evidence. (Distilled from ground A).
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong in law when he admitted that exhibit CP1, a document procured by the respondents from the authorities of the Specialist Hospital, Sokoto to decline exhibits A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, F1 and G1 which are medical certificates/ reports issued by Doctor Hamza Abubakar of the said Hospital as attendant Doctor to the various victims. (Distilled from ground B).
3. Whether the learned trial Judge has not in his judgment delivered on the 17th May, 2022 descended into the arena of the matter in propagation of the respondents’ defense against the appellants. (Distilled from ground C).

Arguing issues one and two together, learned counsel to the appellant Mr. A. U. Ajodo, Esq; first submitted for the appellants that exhibit CP1 from the face of it was issued on the 16th November, 2021 by the authorities of the Specialist Hospital, Sokoto at the request of the respondent parties to suit No.: FHC/S/CS/14/2021 involving he parties herein as applicants and respondents and which eventually culminated in this appeal.

He submitted that the originating process in this suit was filed on the 20th October, 2021 and served same period before the issuance of their exhibit CP1. That the suit before the lower court was first mentioned on the 16th November, 2021, the same date exhibit CP1 was issued and after due service on the respondents who were fully aware of the pending suit and after having appeared in court through their lawyers on that date.

That exhibit CP1 was issued to the respondents, interested parties to suit No.: FHC/S/CS/14/2021 and who demonstrated such interest using exhibit CP1 in their defence processes to discredit exhibits A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, E1, F1 and G1 respectively.

Learned counsel to the appellants submitted that in law, documents obtained by an interested party and directly related to a pending matter or facts in issue are not tenable by such party and courts are forbidden from admitting them in evidence as doing so is giving such a party undue advantage over the other party. Reliance was placed on section 83 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Similarly, counsel cited the case of Aliyu v. Bulaki (2019) LPELR – 46513 per Wambai, JCA, where this court held as follows: –

“Once a document or statement is made by an interested party when the suit is pending for the purpose of proving the party’s claim in the suit or proving a fact in issue, it dearly offends section 83(5) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and is inadmissible in evidence.”

It was argued that at the trial court, exhibit CP1 was inadmissible and ought to have been rejected.