Obi Okudo V. Inspector-general of Police & Ors (1997)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
MUSDAPHER, J.C.A.
Pursuant to provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979, the appellant herein Mr. Obi Okudo applied to the Court below for the following reliefs:-
“1. Declaration that the arrest and detention of the applicant from the 9th to the 16th February, 1983, by the Respondents, their servants and or agents is unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal.
- Declaration that the continued arrest and detention of the applicant by the respondents is unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal.
- Declaration that the respondents’ directive compelling the daily and indefinite attendance of the applicant at the Force C.I.D., Alagbon Close, Lagos, since 16/2/1983 is unconstitutional and illegal.
- An order for the immediate and unconditional release of the applicant from the said arrest and detention.
- Declaration that the applicant is entitled to compensation and apology from the police on account of the unlawful arrest and detention as aforesaid in accordance with Section 36(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
- Order against the respondents for the payment to the applicant of N500,000.00k as special damages and aggravated and general compensation for the wanton in fraction of his fundamental right to personal liberty as aforesaid.”
The respondents filed counter-affidavits denying the allegations and the learned trial Judge called on the parties to give oral evidence. The applicant testified in proof of his allegations while the respondents called two witnesses. After the address of counsel, the learned trial Judge found for the applicant. He held in his judgment as follows:-
“The facts clearly show that the applicant detained for a period of 7 days continuously 9-16th of February, 1983 without being brought to Court, the detention was by the police. This was not denied but was attempted to be justified… I can see no justification for the detention of the applicant for such a period without bringing him to Court of law.
In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the detention of the applicant for the period 9th February to the 16th of February, 1983 was unlawful and I shall so declare … I hereby order that the respondents shall pay to the applicant a sum of N5,000.00k as compensation for loss of liberty by police for detaining him from the 9th February, 1983 to 16th February, 1983. Also that the Inspector General of Police should apologise to the applicant”
Mr. Obi Okudo, the applicant felt disgruntled with the award of only N5 ,000.00k as the compensation for the loss of his liberty and has appealed to this Court on one ground of appeal which reads:-
“That the award of damages by way of compensation to the Plaintiff in the sum of N5,000.00k is manifestly inadequate, unreasonable (sic) and failed to consider all the relevant circumstances and the principles ought therefore be enhanced.”
Three particulars in support of the ground were included in the ground. The particulars merely contained arguments on why this Court should enhance the quantum of damages. It is trite and well settled that a ground of appeal must be so succinctly couched and specifically described that the respondent will know the exact complaint against the judgment. It should avoid prolixity, repetition, narration or arguments. There should be no ambiguities or roundabout arguments in a ground of appeal. See Anie v. Ugagbe (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 402) 425 at 452. The particulars required for the nature of the error or misdirection alleged in relation to a ground of appeal should be the specific reasoning, findings or observations in the decision in question relating to the error or misdirection complained of. The particulars supplied should not be arguments or narratives that ought to be proffered in the brief or at the hearing of the appeal to establish the complaint against the judgment. The particulars should not also, as in this case, be independent complaints from the appeal itself but ancillary to it. See Atuyeye v. Ashamu (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 267. Globe Fishing Industries Ltd. v. Coker (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 162)265; Oge v. Ede (1995) 3NWLR (Pt.385) 564; Boogom v. Awan (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt 410) 692.
It is for the above that I strike out the particulars of the said ground of appeal and shall treat the appeal on the basis of the complaint against the quantum of damages only. I shall ignore the particulars which contain arguments and or narratives. See Order 3 rule 2 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 as amended.
Now, the respondents in this case did not appeal or file a brief, when the matter was called for hearing, after we satisfied ourselves that the respondents were served, we invoked our powers under Order 6 of the Rules of Court and decided to hear the appeal on the basis of the appellant’s complaint on his brief only.
Before dealing with the issue for determination, it is appropriate at this juncture to set out the facts. Put briefly, the appellant was the Editor of an Enugu Weekly Newspaper the Weekly Star. A story was published in the paper which the police decided to arrest and detain the appellant for the purposes of prosecuting him for alleged false publication. He was arrested by the police in Enugu on the 9/2/1983 and was flown to Lagos. He continued in detention until the 16/2/1983. The appellant was not charged to any Court for the alleged offence for false publication. That the appellant suffered a lot of indignities while under the detention. It was also alleged that the appellant (after his release on bail on the 16/2/1983) was directed to be reporting to Alagbon Close daily. He was reporting daily for a period of two weeks each day from 9.00a.m. Until 3.30p.m. It was after his lawyers have petitioned to the police and the Court that he stopped the daily visit to Alagbon Close. That was why he took the action under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. The respondents denied the allegations. In his judgment aforesaid, the learned trial Judge found that the appellant had been unlawfully detained for the period of between 9/2/1983 – 16/2/1983 and was therefore awarded as compensation the sum of N5,000.00k. The Inspector General of Police was also ordered to apologise to him.
Now, the issue formulated in respect of the single ground of appeal reads:-
“Whether the award of damages by way of compensation to the appellant in the sum of N5,000.00k is not manifestly inadequate and unreasonable in the light of the circumstances of this case.”
Now, before dealing with the argument of counsel on this issue, I must point out, that the learned trial judge found only that the respondents had unlawfully detained the appellant from 9/2/1983 – 16/2/1983. The learned trial Judge did not make any findings on the inhuman and undignified treatments meted out to him by the respondents. Nor did he make a finding on the issue of the appellant reporting to the Police after his release. There is no ground of appeal complaining against these issues. This appeal will therefore be treated only on the basis of the finding of the learned trial Judge aforesaid. This Court is bound to consider only the valid ground of appeal filed. All the arguments that go beyond the ground of appeal or which are based on the decision not appealed against go to no issue. See Bakule v. Tanarewa Ltd. (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 728. All arguments not based on the issue for determination properly distilled from the ground of appeal are irrelevant. See Anero v. Eze (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 370) 129 at 138.
A finding of fact by a trial Court which is not appealed against stands admitted and undisputed. See Adejumo v. Ayanlegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 417; Okuoja v. Ishola (1982)7 SC314; Awole v. Owodunmi (No. 1) 1986 5 NWLR (Pt. 46) 941; Oluma v. Onuyuna (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt, 443) 449. Accordingly all the arguments of counsel go to no issue, since there is no appeal against the finding or non finding of the issues raised and argued in the appeal.
The learned counsel conceded in his brief, that the learned trial Judge limited himself in the award of damages to the period of detention between 9/2/1983 – 16/2/1983. He did not take into account the other periods of detention or when the appellant suffered more inhuman treatments or indignities in the hands of the police. As mentioned above, there is no appeal on the facts as found by the learned trial Judge; in view of the authorities cited above, the facts as found by the learned trial Judge stand admitted and could not be disputed without a ground of appeal.
The only issue that remains to be considered is whether on the facts admitted aforesaid, the award of N5,000.00k as damages is inadequate so as to move this Court to enhance it. It has long been established and settled that an appeal court will not disturb the award of damages of a trial court unless it is convinced that the trial Court acted on a wrong principle of law or the amount awarded is so high or low that there was an entirely erroneous estimate of damages. See Nwobosi v. A.C.E. Ltd (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 404) 658. It is also trite that an appellate Court is not justified in substituting a figure of its own for that awarded by the lower Court simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case at first instance.
In UBN. Ltd. v. Odusote Bookstores Ltd. (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt 421) 558 at 586. Wali J.S.C. said –
“The general principle of law is that an award of general damages is a matter for the trial Court and that normally an appeal Court will not interfere with such an award, unless:
(i) Where the trial Judge has acted under a mistake of law.
(ii) Where he has acted in disregard of principle.
(iii) Where he acted under misapprehension of facts.
(iv) Where he has taken into account irrelevant matters or failed to take account of relevant matters or
(v) Where injustice would result if the appeal court does not interfere …
Having regard to these principles and also having regard to the finding of the learned trial Judge, I am not convinced that the award of N5,000.00k as damages for compensation was unreasonable. In 1983, when the cause of action arose the sum of N5,000.00k was a very heavy amount. Converting the awarded sum to its present day value, that sum amounts to about N500,000.00k.
I find no merit in this appeal and I hereby dismiss it. I affirm the decision of the Court below. The respondents also caused to be filed a Notice of Appeal. They did nothing about it. The Notice of Appeal filed by the respondents/appellants on the 30th day of April, 1987, is also dismissed by me.
I make no order as to costs.
Other Citations: (1997)LCN/0271(CA)
