Chief (Dr.) O. Fajemirokun V. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. & Anor (2009)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
O. OGEBE, J.S.C
The appellant brought an application exparte before the Lagos High Court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights against the respondents. He was granted leave to enforce his fundamental right. When issues were joined between him and the respondents, the trial court listened to the arguments of both sides and struck out the appellant’s application. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed. This is a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the appellant filed a brief of argument on his behalf and formulated two issues for determination as follows:
- “Whether the particulars as contained in the Appellant’s processes have not sufficiently made out a case for the violation of his fundamental human rights.”
- “Whether the Appellant was bound to join the Police as a party having identified the Respondents as responsible for the violation of his rights”.
The respondents also filed a brief and identified two issues for determination as follows:
“1. Whether from the facts contained in the processes filed by the applicant/appellant, he ever made out against the Respondents, a case for the violation of his fundamental human rights as to entitle him to an order enforcing his rights in that regard (Grounds 1 and 4).
- Whether from the circumstances surrounding the Applicant/Appellant’s claim, the Appellant’s failure to join the police in the case is fatal to his claim (Grounds 2 and 3)”.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the materials placed before the trial court in the appellant’s affidavit established that his arrest and detention at the instance of the respondents were unconstitutional and a gross violation of his fundamental human rights.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant failed to prove his case before the trial court because his allegation that he was reported to the Police for theft was not established by producing the Police record.
This issue turns entirely on facts. It was the duty of the appellant who alleged in his supporting affidavit that he was reported to the Federal Investigations and Intelligent Bureau, Alagbon Ikoyi for theft to prove it especially as he said that he saw the report in the Police entry book. He failed to produce an extract of the police entry book. He also failed to produce an affidavit from the Police to show the reason for his arrest.
On the other hand, the respondents were able to show from their counter-affidavit that all they did was to report a case of the issuance of dud cheques against Broad Base Mortgage Finance Company Limited which has the appellant as the Chairman of the Board. It was in the course of the investigation that the Police invited the appellant for interrogation.
It is my view that the appellant woefully failed to prove his case before the trial court. The lower court rightly dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the findings of facts made by the trial court. It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to interfere with concurrent findings of facts of the High Court and the Court of Appeal unless compelling reasons justify such interference. I see no cause to interfere in the circumstances of this case. See the case of Seven-up Bottling Company Limited V. Adewale (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 862, 183).
On the second issue the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not bound to join the Police as a party to his suit as he had identified the respondents as being responsible for the violation of his right and the learned counsel submitted that the non-joinder of the police ought not to have defeated his case.
I do not agree with this submission. Since the appellant’s case was that the respondents reported him to the Police who then arrested and detained him, it was necessary for him to join the Police for them to explain the reason for the arrest, to show whether there was a reasonable cause for his arrest. Generally, it is the duty of citizens of this country to report cases of commission of crime to the Police for their investigation and what happens after such report is entirely the responsibility of the Police. The citizens cannot be held culpable for doing their civic duty unless it is shown that it is done mala fide.
For all I have said in this judgment, I see no merit in this appeal and I hereby dismiss it and affirm the judgment of the two lower courts. The appellant shall pay the costs of N50,000.00 to the respondents for this appeal.
SC.336/2002
