The Commissioner Of Police Adamawa State Command v. Richard Pius & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court, sitting in Yola, Adamawa State, in suit No. FHC/YL/CS/8/2020, delivered on 9th December, 2020 by, Hon. Justice A. M. Anka, whereof the trial court granted the fundamental rights action sought by applicant (now 1st respondent) against the appellant, who was 1st respondent herein was also 2nd respondent at the lower court.

At the lower court, the applicant (1st respondent) had sought the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the arrest and detention of the applicant from 11th May, 2018 to 17th May, 2018 by the operative under the command of the 1st respondent at the instant of the 2nd respondent is unlawful, unconstitutional and constitute a gross violation of the applicants fundamental right to personal liberty as guaranteed under section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap AG, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

(b) A declaration that the harassment, intimidation, man-handling, humiliation and torture of the applicant after his arrest and during his detention by the operatives under the command of the 1st respondent at the instigation of the 2nd respondent is unlawful, unwarranted and a violation of the applicants fundamental rights to dignity of his human person as enshrined in section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 2 and 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. 9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

(c) An order of this honourable court compelling the respondents jointly and/or severally to pay punitive and exemplary damages of two hundred million naira (N200,000,000) only for the violation of appellants fundamental rights pursuant to section 34 and 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

(d) 10% of the judgment sum per annum until final liquidation. (See pages 3 and 88 – 89 of the records of appeal)

Appellant filed statement which disclosed the particulars of the parties, the grounds for the reliefs sought, supported by affidavits and exhibits. The applicants 2nd relief in the statement, however, sought twenty million naira (20,000,000) as general damages, not two hundred million naira. It did not also seek 10% of the judgment sum per annum until final liquidation. (See pages 5 to 10 of the records)

The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit with exhibits to deny the claim of the applicant. See pages 43 to 60 of the records of appeal. The 2nd respondent too filed a counter-affidavit to deny the claim, as per pages 22 to 31 of the records, with exhibits.

After hearing the case, as per the affidavits and arguments/ addresses of counsel, the trial court held for applicant, as follows, on pages 100 to 103 of the records of appeal:

The applicant herein has not shown nor provided to the court how the 2nd respondent acted malafide. The 2nd respondent therefore acted in good faith and in line with the law as regards its civic duty and I so hold. Hence liability cannot be extended to the 2nd respondent company and the case against the 2nd respondent is accordingly dismissed.

On the other hand, as regards the 1st respondent, their action is smacked of high handedness viz-a-viz, the flagrant violation of the applicants constitutional right to be brought to court within a reasonable time in line with section 35(5) which in turn curtailed his right to personal liberty from 11th May, 2018 to 17th May, 2018.

The act of the 1st respondents agents of detaining the applicant for 6 days without trial endangers human life or health and is regarded as in-human treatment which constitutes physical and mental cruelty.

Their act also constitutes degrading treatment under section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution and I therefore hold that such act is unlawful, unconstitutional and a gross violation of the applicants right to liberty and dignity of human person. I therefore find the 1st respondent liable for the infringement of the applicants fundamental rights pursuant to sections 34 and 35 of the 1999 Constitution and I so hold