Alexander Madiebo & Ors V. Godwin Nwachukwu Nwankwo (2001)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
GALADIMA, J.C.A.
This is an interlocutory appeal, against the ruling of the High Court of Lagos in suit No. ID/57M/97, presided over by Adeyinka, J., delivered on the 5th day of December, 1997.
The facts of this case are rather straight forward. The respondent, an insurance executive was based in Lagos. The 1st-4th appellants, are his cousins. Following allegations made to the police, concerning the conduct of the respondent, he was arrested by the police on 26/1/97, in his office in Lagos, and detained at the Barracks Police Station, Surulere, Lagos. He was denied bail on the ground, that he committed an undisclosed offence at Awka, in Anambra State. However, he was later informed, that his arrest was as a result of complaint, brought by the appellant over land matter.
On his return to Lagos, the respondent brought ex-parte application and obtained the order of the lower court for leave, to apply for an order enforcing his fundamental rights. Following this, he now brought a motion on notice for a declaration, that his arrest and detention was illegal and unconstitutional and an infringement of his right to personal dignity and personal liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
The 1st-4th appellants, filed a motion seeking to dismiss the case on the ground that the dispute arose out of land matter in Awka, Anambra State, and as such the Lagos State High Court lacked jurisdiction.
In his considered ruling, the learned trial Judge held that, the matter in dispute had nothing to do with the declaration of ownership, to land in Awka, Anambra State, outside the jurisdiction of this court. He however, held that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the case, as it concerned the respondent’s arrest and first detention which took place within the jurisdiction of the court.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants appealed to this court on the following 3 grounds, as contained in the notice of appeal:
“1. The learned trial judge erred in law by failing to consider adequately, all the issues raised in the respondent’s facts in support of his application and the appellant’s motion dated 3rd October, 1997, with the supporting affidavit opposing the jurisdiction of the court, to entertain the application and thus, came to a wrong conclusion that he had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s application, for the enforcement of a breach of his fundamental rights.
- The learned trial judge erred in law, when he took into consideration only the issue relating to the arrest and detention of the respondent in Lagos, and Awka, without regard to the fundamental issue raised by the respondent, in his facts in support and the appellant’s motion in opposition and thereby, came to a wrong conclusion that he had jurisdiction to try the matter.
- The ruling/judgment of the learned trial Court is against the weight of evidence.”
Parties filed their briefs of argument in due compliance with the rules of this court. From the 3 grounds of appeal, the following 2 issues were raised for determination:
“1. Whether the learned trial judge had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s (respondent’s) application for the enforcement or securing enforcement of the alleged breach of his fundamental rights as formulated by the respondent?
- Whether the learned trial judge ought to have declined jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s application in view of the reliefs sought and the facts in support of issues raised in the respondents application?”
The respondent also formulated two issues for determination as follows:
“1. Whether the learned trial judge has jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs sought by the respondent in the application for the enforcement of his fundamental rights?
- Whether in resolving the issue of jurisdiction, the learned trial judge was right in limiting himself to the complaints of the arrest and detention raised by the respondent without considering the issues raised in the objection filed by the appellant?”
On 31/2/2001, at the hearing of the appeal, each counsel adopted his brief of argument and said he had nothing to add or emphasize.
This appeal, once again brings into focus the jurisdiction of the High Court in an application for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Generally, it is a fundamental principle of law that it is the claim of the plaintiff, which determines the jurisdiction of a court. See A-G. Anambra State v .A-G. Federal (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 692 at 742 B. In a fundamental rights application, the jurisdiction of the High Court can be best determined on the basis of the reliefs sought by the applicant. See Agbakoba v. The Director S.S.S. (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt 351) P.475. See also Tukur v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 592.
The reliefs which the respondent as an applicant sought by his application which are set out on page 15 of the record of appeal are as follows:-
“A. A declaration that the arrest of the applicant on 26/1/96 in his office at 30/32 Ojuelegba, Surulere, Lagos, by the respondents’ agents is illegal and unconstitutional, as it offends the applicant’s right to personal dignity and personal liberty guaranteed by sections 31 and 32 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, as amended by the Constitution (Modification and Suspension) Decree 107 of 1993.
B. A declaration that the applicant’s detention at the Barracks Police Station, Lagos, and Awka Police Station, between 26th and 27th January, 1996, by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional, as it offends the applicant’s right to personal liberty guaranteed by section 32 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, as amended by the Constitution (Modification and Suspension) Decree No. 107 of 1993.
C. N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) being general damages for the aforesaid violations of the applicant’s right.
D. A perpetual injunction restraining the respondent, whether by themselves, their agents, privies and servants from further harassing or intimidating the applicant in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.”
It is the contention of the appellants that the main claim of the respondent as formulated is not the enforcement or securing the enforcement of a fundamental right. I do not agree with this view. For a cursory look at the reliefs sought by the respondent as set out above, clearly depict a complaint bordering on the infringement of his fundamental rights. He is challenging the constitutionality of his arrest in Lagos, on 26/1/96 and subsequent detention in Lagos, and Awka, from 26th – 27th January, 1996. He also claims damages of N1 million and seeks an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the appellants and the police from harassing or intimidating him.
In his narration of facts supporting his application, the respondent alleges how he was arrested by the police on the instruction of the 5th appellant in Lagos, without warrant, locked up at the Police Station where he was “rough-handled, pushed into the cell and locked up with the criminal suspects.” They refused to disclose the reason for his arrest and he was denied bail. These events took place between January 26th and 27th, 1996. Thereafter, he was taken to Awka Police Station in Anambra, where he was further detained for 8 hours. While at Awka the police disclosed that he had been arrested, and detained over a land dispute between him and the appellants. On the advice of the police that the matter be resolved amicably, the appellants decided to withdraw their complaint. It is further stated, that as the parties were unable to resolve the land dispute, the appellants threatened to use their connection to further deal ruthlessly, with the respondent.
Where lies the justification for the illegal arrest and detention of the respondent. It is trite law, that where a party to a suit claims to have unlawfully been arrested and detained by another, the burden of proving the legality or constitutionality of the arrest and detention is on the party, who effected the arrest. See C.O.P Ondo State v. Obolo (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 120) 130; Abiola v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 405) 1.
For no just cause, the appellants failed to file a return to justify the arrest and detention of the respondent. Instead, they filed a motion seeking to dismiss the respondent’s application for want of jurisdiction of the lower court on the ground, that the application is frivolous or vexatious, otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. An order was also sought to strike out the names of the 1st , 2nd and 4th appellants on the ground that they are not proper parties to the action.
From the appellant’s copious affidavit in support of their motion for the dismissal of the respondent’s action, it is not in doubt that the arrest and detention of the respondent, has to do with the land in dispute between the parties in Awka, Anambra State. I have carefully, set out above the reliefs sought by the respondent. I have said it for the umpteenth times, that the action of the respondent is not in respect of declaration of ownership or title to land in dispute in Awka, Anambra State.
The reliefs really depict the respondent’s complaint bordering on alleged infringement of his fundamental rights. He is challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and detention here, in Lagos and Awka. It would appear that the parties realized that the Lagos State High Court, has no jurisdiction over land dispute in Anambra State. It is for this reason, that the respondent filed a separate suit at Awka, in Suit No. A/98/97 on 9/4/97, in respect of the disputed land. On their own part the appellants filed their Suit No. A/114/97 on 9/6/97 on the same land in dispute.
The learned trial judge, in my view confined himself to the reliefs sought by the respondent. He therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction to entertain the action. I do not see how the issue of declaration of title to land, can be taken to be part of the claim or reliefs sought by the respondent. The fact that there was a land dispute in Awka, Anambra State, this alone cannot deprive the Lagos State High Court of the jurisdiction, to entertain an action for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the respondent, in Lagos State, where the alleged infraction took place.
In my view the issue relating to alleged unlawful arrest and detention of the respondent, are not accessory claims, but are the principal reliefs sought.
The issue relating to the alleged unlawful arrest and detention of the respondent in Lagos and Awka, may be so inextricably woven and bound up with the land dispute and ownership, however, does not prevent the respondent from seeking to enforce his fundamental rights where breached. While the case of Odunsi v. Ojora (1961) All NLR 283 cited by the counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of this instant case, indeed the case of Minister of Internal Affairs v. Shugaba (1982) 3 NCLR, 915 and the case of B.R.T.C. v. Egbuonu (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 171) 81, both support the respondent’s case. In Shugaba’s case, the Supreme Court had held inter alia that the reliefs sought by the respondent concerned his fundamental rights even though the violations arose from his deportation to the Republic of Chad, by the Nigerian Immigration Service officials. So it is in the instant case. The infringement of the fundamental rights of the respondent stemmed from the land dispute. The learned trial judge was therefore, in order when he ruled that he had jurisdiction to entertain the action.
The second issue formulated by the counsel to the parties, is whether in resolving the issue of jurisdiction, the learned trial judge was right in limiting himself to the complaints of the arrest and detention raised by the respondent, without considering the issues raised in the objection filed by the appellants.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the trial judge adequately considered all the issues raised in the appellants’ motion for the dismissal of the action. I strongly hold this view as well. The learned trial Judge had painstakingly, considered all the relevant issues raised by the parties. He found at p.51 of the record of this appeal thus:
“A combination of paragraphs 8, 13, 15 and 16, in the applicant’s statement shows that the police in Lagos State, arrested the applicant in Surulere, Lagos, and took him to Anambra State, at the complaints of the 1st-4th respondents. The 1st-4th respondents are therefore, proper parties to this action. The affidavit of the respondents dated 9/10/96, is an admission that he accompanied the 3rd respondent, when the latter went to complain at the Central Police Station, Awka. I refer to the 1st two grounds and hold that this action is not frivolous or vexatious and not an abuse of court process, since the act took place within the jurisdiction of this court.”
The land dispute is not in any way considered by the lower court. This is what he had to say on the issue of land in dispute:
“Although the alleged arrest and detention derived from the land in dispute in Awka, Anambra State, this suit is not in respect of declaration of ownership to the land… outside the jurisdiction of this court.”
I do not find basis for the allegation of the appellants in their brief that the lower court made an order of perpetual injunction on an ex-parte application. The order ex-parte granting leave to the respondent to enforce his fundamental rights is set out on pages 20 -21 of the record. The order reads thus:
“An order permitting the granting of leave to act as a stay of all actions in respect of the applicant’s complaints by restraining the respondents from further arresting, harassing or intimidating the applicant in any manner, whatsoever and howsoever, pending the final determination of the substantive application herein.”
This apart, none of the grounds of appeal covers the issue of ex-parte order, and as such arguments proffered on same cannot be considered save by leave of this court. See Odife v. Aniemeka (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 251) 25.
In the result, this appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. The ruling of the lower court delivered on the 5th day of December, 1997, is hereby affirmed. The case is remitted to the Chief Judge of Lagos State, for assignment to another judge for the hearing of motion on notice. There will be no order as to costs.
Other Citations: 2001)LCN/0976(CA)
