MR. RICHARD MBA & ORS v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS
CITATION: (2020) LPELR-51742(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
In the Lagos Judicial Division
Holden at Lagos
ON TUESDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER, 2020
Suit No: CA/LAG/CV/1111/2019
Before Their Lordships:
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA
Justice, Court of Appeal
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR
Justice, Court of Appeal
EBIOWEI TOBI
Justice, Court of Appeal
Between
1. MR RICHARD MBA2. MR AKINDURO LAWSON3. CHIEF RAHEEM ABEGUNDE OJE4. MR BEN OBIUWEVBI
– Appellant(s)
And
1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE2. NIGERIA POLICE FORCE3. LAGOS STATE TASK FORCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SPECIAL OFFENCES UNIT4. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE – Respondent(s)
LEADING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
THE Appellants (Applicants at the lower Court) were residents and landlords in Atinporome Community in Badagry, Lagos State. On December 14, 2013, the agents of the Respondents wrote a letter to the Appellants to vacate their houses and land. The Appellants replied same through their solicitor intimating them that there was a subsisting Court order to maintain status quo on the land. At about 4.30am of 16th December, 2013, heavily armed police men and officials of the task force, with 16 black maria vehicles and 12 bulldozers, invaded the community and demolished the Appellants’ houses alongside over 500 other houses without any Court order. The Appellants alleged that they were arrested, tortured and detained on December 16 and 17, 2013. They claimed that the demolition made them lose their valuables, homes, businesses and health. Thus, the Appellants commenced an action at the Federal High Court Lagos Division, via an originating motion under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 seeking declaratory reliefs and injunction.
In a considered judgment, the Federal High Court declined jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Lagos State High Court for adjudication. The Appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court filed this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Court determined the appeal on the sole issue that is: whether the learned trial judge was right when he declined jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants’ fundamental rights suit against the Respondents.
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
On issue one, Appellant’s counsel stated that the lower Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to hear fundamental right matter. He relied on Jack v. Unam (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 865); FUTA Minna v. Olutayo (2017) LPELR – 43827, Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009. Citing Sea Trucks (Nig) Ltd v. Anigboro (2001) LPELR – 3025 (SC), Counsel stated that the current approach to determine whether a matter would fall under fundamental right procedure was stated in the case. He further stated that the Appellants’ reliefs showed that the suit constituted a breach of their fundamental rights under Chapter IV of the Constitution, (as amended).
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the Appellants’ suit robbed the lower Court of jurisdiction to hear it. He cited Ohakim v Agbaso (2010) LPELR – 2359; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. He enumerated the process to be considered in determining jurisdiction of Court by citing Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31; Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1025) 427. Counsel posited that the Appellants’ main claims were title to land, demolition of their houses and trespass which did not fall under fundamental rights but incidental to them. Counsel mentioned that for a Court to have jurisdiction, it is trite that the main claim be under fundamental right. He relied on WAEC v. Adeyanju (2008) LPELR – 3467 (SC), Ezeanyika v. Governor of Imo State (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 361) 151; Tukur v. Govt of Taraba (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt 510) 549.
Respondent’s counsel conceded that the High Court in that State under Section 46 (1) of the Constitution, as amended, meant the High Court or the Federal High Court. He stated that for the lower Court to have jurisdiction the fundamental right matters must be in relation to the items in Section 251(1) of the Constitution, as amended. He cited Abdullahi v. Komolafe (2019) LPELR – 46519 (CA), Adetona v. Igele General Enterprises Ltd (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 542.
REPLY
On points of law, Appellants’ counsel urged the Court to follow its decision in Adu v. Lagos State Task Force on Environment and Special Offences Unit (unreported) Appeal No. CA/L/972/2014, delivered on 23rd February, 2016.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
On issue one, the Court mentioned that the law compels the Courts to accord premier attention to issue of jurisdiction, which is paramount in adjudication, when raised in any proceedings. The Court cited Okwu v. Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193. The Court defined jurisdiction as the authority/power of a Court to determine a dispute submitted to it by contending parties in any proceeding and cited Ajomale v. Yaduat (No. 1) (1991) 5 SCNJ 172; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1.
Furthermore, the Court mentioned that a Court has jurisdiction to hear a matter when it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. The Court cited Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (2006) 2 LC 2081961) NSCC (vol. 2) 374 at 379, per Bairamian F. J., Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 387. The Court emphasized the fact that the three ingredients must co-exist in order to infuse jurisdiction in a Court.
The Court stated that where a Court is drained of the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceeding germinating from it, no matter how well conducted, will amount to a nullity. The Court relied on Elugbe v. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319; Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 328.
The Court mentioned that a statement of claim is the major barometer to be used by the Court to measure the presence or absence of its jurisdiction. Cited A.G. Fed. v. A.G. Anambra State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 314; Yar’adua v. Yandoma(2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 213; Ikine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446. The Court stated that in an action commenced by way of originating summons/motion, as in this case, the affidavit in support as well as reliefs serves as the statement of claim which in turn is one of the determinants of jurisdiction. The Court cited PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114.
On the contention of the Respondents that the Appellants’ claims and main reliefs were incidental and outside the firmament of fundament rights procedure, the Court held that where the main/primary right/claim is not a fundamental right, or where a fundamental right is an ancillary to another claim, then it is improper to seek relief in a Court under the sanctuary of fundamental right procedure as such a situation affects the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court relied on WAEC v. Adeyanju (supra); Nwachukwu v. Nwachukwu (2018) 17 NWLR (pt. 1648) 357. The Court further stated that case law has invented the acceptable judicial formula which Courts use as the yardstick/template to gauge the presence or absence of main or ancillary rights. The Court cited Sea Trucks (Nig.) Ltd v. Anigboro (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt.696) 159, wherein Karibi-Whyte, JSC, held that “The correct approach in a claim for the enforcement of fundamental rights is to examine the reliefs sought, the grounds for such relief, and the facts relied upon. Where the facts relied upon disclose a breach of the fundamental right of the applicant as the basis of the claim, there is here a redress through the enforcement of such rights through the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979. However, where the alleged breach of right is ancillary or incidental to the main grievance or complaint, incompetent to proceed under the rules. This is because the right, if any, violated, is not synonymous with the substantive claim which is the subject-matter of the action. Enforcement of the right per-se cannot resolve the substantive claim which is any case different.”
The Court opined that the fourth relief of the Appellants is weaved on a claim for compensation which is cognisable under Section 35 (6) of the Constitution, as amended. The Court cited Muhammed v IGP (2019) 4 NWLR (pt 1663) 492; Jim-Jaja v. C.O.P, Rivers State (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 225.
The Court also opined that the Appellants’ claims are hinged on their rights to dignity of human person, personal liberty, fair hearing and acquire/own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria as enshrined in Sections 34, 35, 36, 43 and 44 of the Constitution, as amended, respectively.
The Court stated that the Appellants’ principal claims fall squarely within the commodious four walls of fundamental rights, that the fifth relief is a supplication for an order of injunction. The Court held that an injunctive claim has no independent life of its own, that its success or failure is parasitic on that of the declaratory relief. Relied on Fagunwa v. Adibi (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 903) 544. The Court opined that a Court equipped with jurisdiction to hear the main claim, is also clothed with the vires to try the auxiliary relief and vice versa. The Court stated that it is traced to the latin maxim Accesoruim non-ducitsedsequitussuum principale, id est, that which is incidental does not lead, but follows its principal. Cited Tukur v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517.
The Court opined that the Appellants’ claims are deeply rooted in the allegation of breach of their fundamental rights. The Court held that that the High Court of a State and the Federal High Court share concurrent jurisdiction in matters bordering on enforcement of fundamental rights as enshrined in Section 46 (1) of the Constitution, as amended, irrespective of the parties therein. Cited Jack v. UNAM (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt.865) 208; EFCC v. Wolfgang Reinl (2020) 9 NWLR (pt. 1730) 489 at 514 and 515. The Court held that the lower Court was the appropriate forum competent for the determination of the Appellants’ action which is anchored on the infractions of their fundamental rights.
The Court stated that a fundamental right action is peculiar and special with its own rules for its adjudication. Cited Onyekwuluje v. Benue State Govt., (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1484) 40 per Peter-Odili, JSC. That it is sui generis.
In conclusion, the Court held that the lower Court’s proclamation/finding is a serious defilement of the law and an assailable one.
HELD
On the whole, the appeal was allowed; the judgment of the lower Court was set aside. The Court remitted the suit back to the Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court (i.e., lower Court) for reassignment to another Judge for trial de novo.
Appearances:
O.E. Ogungbeje, Esq.
– For Appellant(s)
Hameed Oyenuga, Esq., Director Civil Litigation,
Ministry of Justice, Lagos State
– For 3rd & 4th Respondent(s)
No legal representation for the first and
second respondents.
