AKINBOLAJI & ORS v. TAIWO

CITATION: (2018) LPELR-46578(CA)

In the Court of AppealIn the Lagos Judicial Division

Holden at Lagos

ON FRIDAY, 7TH DECEMBER, 2018Suit No: CA/L/250/2009

Before Their Lordships:

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice, Court of AppealUGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU Justice, Court of AppealGABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE Justice, Court of Appeal

BetweenMR. ISAAC AKINBOLAJIMR. TEMIDAYO AKINBOLAJIPASTOR BENJAMIN OGUNTOYEMR. VICTOR ADENIJI ADEGBOYEGAMR. ISRAEL OLADELE OGUNDIPE (GENESIS)MR. & ALHAJA BOLA ADETOLA

- Appellant(s)

AndHIS ROYAL HIGHNESS OBA RILWAN OLUWALAMBETAIWO - Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:Circumstances that amount to breach of fundamental rights"It can be inferred from the credible and uncontroverted affidavit evidence(supra) of the respondent that the "invitation" by the police had coercedundertone with subtle/soft subterranean hint of enforcing it by physicalarrest, if need be, which obliged the respondent to comply with the"invitation" thus amounting to an arrest vide the apt case of Aigoro v.Anebunwa (1966) N.N.L.R. 87 at 92 where it was held inter alia that -"The second observation is relevant to the case before us. It is necessary toamplify what was said in the passage we have just read from the judgmentin Ateze v. Morna. There may be apprehension of force as much from animplied threat of force as from a threat expressly made, and a mistakenbelief that legal process is being used or exists can bring about a submissionjust as real and effective as could be caused by any actual legal process. Thequestion for a Court will always be whether there is evidence, direct orinferential, of a submission on the part of the plaintiff and a consequentrestraint of his liberty. ...in complying with the "invitation" at that moment and in thosecircumstances the respondent can hardly be supposed to have been doingwhat he wanted to do or acting of his own free will. There was evidence fromwhich a submission on the part of the respondent and a restraint of hisliberty could properly have been inferred, as it was inferred."See also the case of Diamond Bank Plc v. Opara (2018) 7 NWLR (pt. 617) 92at 120.The fact that there is undisputed evidence that the respondent processedpolice bail before he was released on police bail showed there was restrainton liberty of the respondent before he was released on police bail. The stableaffidavit evidence of the respondent particularly paragraph 12 thereof reads-"The paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were carried out by the Zone 2Police Headquarters on the prompting, instruction and connivance of the 6thRespondent and his cohorts to harass, intimidate and humiliate the Applicantover a property that does not belong to him. The annoyance and complaintof the Applicant in his application is the prompting of the 6th to 9thRespondents by the 1st to 6th Respondents to harass, arrest, intimidate,humiliate for the purpose of causing him embarrassment and odium."I agree with the Court below that from the convincing affidavit of therespondent, the appellants were actively instrumental in instigating thepolice (7th - 9th respondents at the Court below) in infringing hisfundamental right to personal liberty when the controversy between theappellants and the respondent was sub-judice as held by the Court belowvide the cases of EFCC v. Diamond Bank Plc (2018) 8 NWLR (pt.1620) 61,Diamond Bank Plc v. Opara (supra) at 92 forbidding the use of lawenforcement agencies to enforce civil disputes."Per IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Pp. 17-19,Paras. B-D) - read in context

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

2. EVIDENCE - UNCHALLENGED/UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE: Effect ofan unchallenged/uncontroverted evidence"The affidavit in support of the application which is contained in pages 52 -56 of the record and the further affidavit in reply to the 1st - 2nd appellants'counter affidavit in pages 94 - 95 of the record were not frontally denied bythe appellants in the respective surviving paragraphs of their affidavitevidence.The credible affidavit evidence of the respondent which was weaklychallenged by the appellants amounted to an admission and established therespondent's case as rightly held by the Court below vide by analogy thecases of Unibiz Nigeria Ltd. v. Commercial Bank (Credit Lyonnais (Nig.)Limited) (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 944) 47, The Registered Trustees of NationalAssociation of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria and Ors. v. Medicaland Health Workers Union of Nigeria (2008) 2 NWLR (pt. 1072) 575, PlateauState v. A.-G., Nasarawa State (2005) 9 NWLR (pt.930) 421,Badejo v. Federal Ministry of Education (1999) 8 NWLR (pt. 464) 15, Ex parteAdesina (1996) 4 NWLR (pt.442) 254, Federal Housing Authority (F.H.A.) v.E.S. Ltd. (2011) All FWLR (pt.42) at 55 - 56."Per IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Pp. 16-17,Paras. B-A) - read in context

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the

Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the decision of

the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos by which it gave

judgment for the enforcement of the respondent’s

fundamental rights by issuing a declaration that the

incessant visit and forceful entry of the respondent’s palace

by the appellants on 17.12.2004 was unconstitutional; a

declarat ion that the cont inuous harassment ,

embarrassment, intimidation or threat of arrest and arrest

without lawful order of a Court was unconstitutional; an

order restraining the appellants, their agents, privies and

whosoever from forcefully entering and breaking into the

palace of the respondent for the purpose of embarrassing,

intimidating, locking him out and arresting him in a matter

that is civil and subjudice; and the award of N250,000.00

general damages jointly and severally against the 1st – 9th

applicants.

Aggrieved with the decision, the appellants filed a notice of

appeal with six (6) grounds of appeal on 01.07.05. It was

argued in the joint brief of arguments of the appellants

filed on 05.02.10 that the Court below was wrong in

1

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

striking out the relevant portions of the appellants’ counter

affidavit showing their stand on the issue of the Obaship

and land tussle between the appellants and the respondent

which were necessary as they constituted the complaint of

the appellants to the appropriate government agency

responsible for prevention of crime and that the said

paragraphs 11, 14, 16, 18 and 19 of the 3rd appellant’s

counter affidavit to the affidavit of the respondent in pages

101 to 104 of the record of appeal (the record) did not

contain argument and opinion but statement of facts,

therefore the Court below was wrong in striking them out

for offending Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the Evidence Act.

It was also argued that the Court below had a duty to listen

to the facts deposed to in paragraphs 10 – 25 of the 1st –

2nd appellants’ counter affidavit in pages 91 – 92 of the

record which led to their reporting the respondent to the

police and that by expunging some paragraphs of the

counter affidavit the Court below deprived itself of relevant

facts which were useful for the just and equitable

determination of the action which involved the right

2

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

of the appellants to report the respondent to the police with

a view to protecting their right to property.

The appellants argued that a close look at the respondent’s

affidavit contained in pages 52 – 57 of the record did not

disclose any arrest and detention of the respondent, let

alone unlawful arrest and detention vide paragraph 11 of

the affidavit in particular which deposed that upon a

petition to the police by the “so called Indigenes Congress”

through the 4th appellant, their secretary, against the

respondent the latter was invited by the police at Zone 2,

Onikan Lagos and he obliged the invitation, therefore by

Section 4 of the Police Act Cap.p.19 the police have the

discretion to either arrest or refrain from arresting a

suspect for the prevention and detection of crime, the

apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and

order, the protection of life and property and the due

enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are

directly charged; and that the respondents were therefore

wrong to hold the 1st – 6th appellants responsible for the

exercise of the discretion of the police (7th, 8th and 9th

3

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

respondents at the Court below) citing in aid the case of

Fawehinmi v. Inspector General of Police (2002) WRN

1.

It was argued that the respondent went further to depose

that he obliged the police invitation meaning the

respondent felt legally and morally bound to honour the

police invitation vide the dictionary meaning of the phrase

‘oblige’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, by Bryan A.

Garner at page 1106; that paragraph 16 of the

respondent’s affidavit, does not disclose evidence of arrest

and detention; and that the police (7th to 9th respondents

at the Court below) have the power to arrest and detain a

suspect but what is forbidden by law is unlawful arrest and

detention and in the instant case there is no evidence of

arrest and detention, therefore the Court below was wrong

in holding that the appellants were liable for the arrest and

detention of the respondent when what the appellants did

was only to make a report to the police.

The appellants argued that by inviting the respondent to

the police station the 7th – 9th respondents at the Court

below did not exceed their statutory powers and that even

if there

4

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

was evidence of arrest, the 7th – 9th respondents at the

Court below had the powers to arrest the respondent on

legitimate report of his committing a felony; but that in any

event paragraphs 11, 14 and 16 of the respondent’s

affidavit evidence in pages 52 to 55 of the record did not

disclose evidence of any arrest of the respondent by the 7th

– 9th respondents at the Court below.

The appellants argued that the power of arrest by the

police could be exercised after the police are satisfied that

a felony has been committed or about to be committed,

therefore unless there is copious evidence of undue

influence, a citizen cannot be held “vicariously liable” with

the police in the exercise of their discretion to either arrest

or not citing in support the cases of Mclaren v. Jennings

(2003) 3 NWLR (pt. 808) 468 at 483 – 484 and

Nwagwu v. Duru (2002) 2 NWLR (pt. 265) 283.

Consequently the appellants contended that in the absence

of concrete evidence that their presence at the police

station upon invitation by the police over their petition

prompted or induced the police to arrest and detain the

respondent, the appellants cannot be held vicariously liable

in the circumstances.

5

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

The appellants argued that their deposition that the

respondent dispossessed the 1st – 2nd appellants of their

property was neither controverted or denied by the

respondent; that the 3rd and 5th appellants’ deposition that

the respondent tried to dispossess him of his property was

not denied by the respondent other than the respondent’s

deposition that he was in Court over ownership of land with

some people which could not have prevented the police

from investigating allegation of theft and illegal conversion

of property.

The appellants argued that the respondent stated that he

was invited by the police and he obliged showing he was

not arrested or detained as to entitle him to the award of

N250,000 damages for alleged infringement of his

fundamental right under Section 35(6) of the Constitution

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (the 1999

Constitution); more so, the 7th – 9th respondents at the

Court below were not heard before the award of N250,000

was made against them and the appellants in favour of the

respondent.

6

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

The appellants concluded their arguments in the brief in

these words–

“We urge the Court to upturn the judgment of the

lower Court and in its position to dismiss the claims

of the Respondent with punitive cost. The Appellants

are not in any way liable to the Respondent who had

wronged them. The suit as rightly submitted by the

Appellants is just to serve as a shield to cover the

atrocities of the Respondent. A dangerous precedent

will be laid if the Respondent is allowed to commit a

felony and rush to Court alleging violation of his right

when investigation was on going by the appropriate

government agency. The law is no respecter of

anybody be it a king, or an ordinary citizen. The

question one is tempted to ask is, whether the

position of Oba will prevent the police from carrying

out investigation when allegation of stealing and

illegal conversion of other people’s properties were

levied against the Respondent."

It is on account of the submissions (supra) that the

appellants urged that the appeal should be allowed.

The respondent’s brief was filed on 16.03.10. It was argued

in the brief that the Court below was right in striking out

7

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

paragraphs 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28 and 29 of the 4th

appellants counter affidavit and paragraphs 11, 14, 16, 18

and 19 of the 3rd appellant’s counter affidavit on the

ground that they constitute arguments, conclusions,

opinions, hearsay and offend Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the

Evidence Act.

The respondent argued that the appellants set the law in

motion by Exhibits AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF which were not

contradicted by the appellants as the 4th appellant also

admitted in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit citing in

support the case of Leadway Association Company

Limited v. Zeco Nigeria (2004) MJSC 179 at 181; that

the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the respondent in

pages 105 – 107 of the unchallenged affidavit evidence of

the respondent in pages 105 – 107 of the record established

that the appellants “coaxed, prompted, induced and

employed undue pressure on the police in the discharge of

their official duties after the police had advised parties to

seek civil ways of resolving their dispute; and that as the

appellants did not answer specifically the said affidavit

evidence of the respondent, their general denials amounted

to

8

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

admission of the respondent’s affidavit evidence citing in

support the cases of Leadway Association Company

Limited v. Zeco Nigeria (supra), Emegokwe v.

Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC 113, Ogunsola v. Usuma (2002)

14 NWLR (pt.788) 657 at 662.

The respondent also argued that his invitation by the

police, as well as the writing of his statement under caution

and admitting him to police bail on terms followed by

subsequent visits of the respondent to the office of the 7th –

9 th respondents a t the Cour t be low and the

“bombardment” of the palace of the respondent by the

police for three (3) hours and the attendant harassment,

intimidation and embarrassment of the respondent by the

police with the connivance, prompting and undue pressure

by the appellants through offering gratification to the 7th –

9th respondents set the law in motion to humiliate the

respondent which exceeded the statutory powers of the

police and infringed the respondent’s fundamental rights

citing in support Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution read

with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure)

Rules (FREPR) 1979 and the cases of Fajemirokun v.

Commercial

9

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

Bank Credit Lyonnais and Anor. (2002) 10 NWLR

(pt.774) 95 at 98 – 99, C & C. Constr. v. Okhai (2004)

2 MJSC 134, Sea Trucks Nigeria Limited v. Anigboro

(?) (2001) 10 WRN or (2001) 1 SC (pt.1) 34, Ahmad v.

Sokoto State House of Assembly (2002) 15 NWLR

(pt.791) 539 at 563, Agbakoba v. DCSS (1998)

HRLRA 253 at 275, Mclarens v. Jennings (2003) 3

NWLR (pt.808) 468.

The respondent argued that on the uncontroverted facts

accepted by the Court below establishing his fundamental

rights at the instance of the appellants over a civil dispute

respecting land tussle over Obaship, the Court below was

right in awarding the N250,000 damages for the breach of

the respondent’s fundamental rights by the appellants

citing in support the cases of Shugaba v. Federal

Minister of Internal Affairs HRLRA 373338,

Ezeadukwa v. Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR (pt. 518) 639 at

566 (?); upon which the respondent urged that the appeal

should be dismissed.

The appellants filed a reply brief on 24.10.10 in which it

was contended that the issue of service of the originating

process and other processes on the 7th – 9th respondents

was the duty of the Court below to

10

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

verify and confirm, not the respondent; that the respondent

who did not cross-appeal should not have formulated issues

for determination outside the grounds of appeal filed by the

appellants; that there was no seizure or forcible restraint of

the respondent to constitute an arrest citing in support

Black’s Law Dictionary (supra) 116; that what happened

after the filing of the application should be disregarded;

and that there was no evidence of “prompting” and

“inducement”; therefore the appeal should be allowed.

The respondent did not cross-appeal. The appeal shall

therefore be determined on the issues distilled by the

appellants who own the appeal and whose issues are in

tandem with the grounds of appeal vide Nwabueze v. The

People of Lagos State (2018) 11 NWLR (pt. 1630) 201

at 211.

The Court below struck out paragraphs 11, 14, 16, 18 and

19 of the 3rd appellant’s counter affidavit in its ruling on

the ground that they are conclusions and arguments and

offend Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the Evidence Act and do

not disclose the source of the facts vide page 162 of the

record.

11

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

Similarly, paragraphs 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28 and 29 of

the 4th appellant’s counter affidavit in pages 86 – 89 of the

record were struck out for offending Sections 86, 87 and 88

of the Evidence Act which forbids arguments and opinions

in affidavit evidence vide page 161 of the record containing

part of the decision or ruling of the Court below.

The counter affidavit of the 4th appellant is in pages 86 –

89 of the record; while the 3rd respondent’s counter

affidavit is in pages 101 – 104 of the record. Paragraph 11

of the 4th respondent’s counter affidavit when read with

the preceding paragraph 10 thereof referred to a pending

litigation over the Obaship of Ojokoro which was

extraneous to the alleged infraction of the respondent’s

fundamental rights that was in litigation at the Court

below; while paragraphs 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28 and

29 of the counter affidavit do not state as a fact the

information deposed therein; nor does the 4th appellant

disclose his source of information on the said deposition.

Paragraphs 18, 19, 28 and 29 thereof also draw conclusions

and are thus not statements of facts per se.

12

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

The Court below was therefore right in striking out the said

paragraphs of the 4th appellant’s counter affidavit for

containing extraneous matter by way of conclusion and not

disclosing the source of information as earlier stated

contrary to Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the Evidence Act,

then applicable to the case now Section 115 of the

Evidence Act 2011 (Evidence Act).

Paragraphs 11, 14, 16, 18 and 19 of the 3rd appellant’s

counter affidavit in pages 102 – 103 of the record are

conclusions and were also rightly struck out by the Court

below vide Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the Evidence Act then

applicable to the case, now Section 115 of the Evidence

Act. See alsoBamaiyi v. The State (2001) FWLR (pt.46)

956, Veepee Industries Ltd. v. Cocoa Industries Ltd.

(2008) All FWLR (pt. 425) 1667 at 1685, Maja v.

Samouris (2002) FWLR (pt.98) 819.

I agree with the appellants that events that occurred after

the action was filed constitute separate cause of action, if

any, and would not be considered in the present case. The

episode after the Court sitting detailed in the submissions

of the respondent and the affidavit evidence in support in

13

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

pages 105 – 107 of the record are accordingly irrelevant to

the consideration of the present case as they related to

what transpired after the action was filed without an

amendment to incorporate same in the action.

The Court below held in its ruling in pages 163 – 166 of the

record thus -

“The Respondents specifically the Police had

bombarded the palace on the 17th day of December,

2004 surrounded by more than 15 Policemen and held

the house hostage for three (3) hours with guns to

arrest the Applicant. The Applicant has been

reporting at the Station daily and the Police had

enough time to have detained him on the charges.

These amounts to obvious threats of violation to

F u n d a m e n t a l H u m a n R i g h t s a n d i t i s

unconstitutional, his dignity, has been injured by

these acts and he has been living in constant [ear of

those violation. The deposition of the 1st - 6th

Respondents are not an answer to the acts

complained about, it is trite law that specific

deposition of facts in an affidavit cannot be

controverted by sweeping or general denials in a

counter affidavit.

14

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

It is also trite law that once a case is pending in a

Court of law all actions relating to it must cease. The

Suit in the High Court in my view is sufficient to put

an end to the dispute on land and since the incident

of disposing the 1st - 2nd Defendants items without

his authority is to be investigated by the Police and

charged to Court if need be.

In comparing all the counter affidavits of the 1st - 6th

Respondents, I find that none of them denied the

averments in the verifying affidavit generally or

specifically but offered reasons on why they

petitioned the Applicant, this is clearly an admission

and is deemed to be the true position.

There was therefore no need for either the invasion of

the 17th day of December, 2004 it is uncontroverted

that the 1st - 6th Applicants had followed up the

events, pressurizing and instigating the Police to

arrest and detain; and humiliate the Applicant. They

did more than petition or point out a suspect.

It is trite law that where an application has satisfied

the Court that his Fundamental Rights has been

breached, the onus is on the Respondents to justify

the breach within the confines of the law. The

Respondents have not discharged the onus by

affidavit evidence.

15

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

See AGBAKOBA VS. DCSS (1998) 1 HRLRA 253 AT

275 E-H.

I further f ind that there is a breach of the

Fundamental Right of the Applicant and I so hold and

there is a genuine fear of a threat/breach by the

Respondents.”

The affidavit in support of the application which is

contained in pages 52 – 56 of the record and the further

affidavit in reply to the 1st – 2nd appellants’ counter

affidavit in pages 94 – 95 of the record were not frontally

denied by the appellants in the respective surviving

paragraphs of their affidavit evidence.

The credible affidavit evidence of the respondent which

was weakly challenged by the appellants amounted to an

admission and established the respondent’s case as rightly

held by the Court below vide by analogy the cases of

Unibiz Nigeria Ltd. v. Commercial Bank (Credit

Lyonnais (Nig.) Limited) (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 944)

47, The Registered Trustees of National Association

of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria and

Ors. v. Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria

(2008) 2 NWLR (pt. 1072) 575, Plateau State v. A.-G.,

Nasarawa State (2005) 9 NWLR (pt.930) 421,

16

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

Badejo v. Federal Ministry of Education (1999) 8

NWLR (pt. 464) 15, Ex parte Adesina (1996) 4 NWLR

(pt.442) 254, Federal Housing Authority (F.H.A.) v.

E.S. Ltd. (2011) All FWLR (pt.42) at 55 - 56.

It can be inferred from the credible and uncontroverted

affidavit evidence (supra) of the respondent that the

“invitation” by the police had coerced undertone with

subtle/soft subterranean hint of enforcing it by physical

arrest, if need be, which obliged the respondent to comply

with the “invitation” thus amounting to an arrest vide the

apt case of Aigoro v. Anebunwa (1966) N.N.L.R. 87 at

92 where it was held inter alia that -

“The second observation is relevant to the case before

us. It is necessary to amplify what was said in the

passage we have just read from the judgment in Ateze

v. Morna. There may be apprehension of force as

much from an implied threat of force as from a threat

expressly made, and a mistaken belief that legal

process is being used or exists can bring about a

submission just as real and effective as could be

caused by any actual legal process. The question for a

Court will always be whether there is evidence,

17

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

direct or inferential, of a submission on the part of

the plaintiff and a consequent restraint of his liberty.

...

in complying with the "invitation" at that moment

and in those circumstances the respondent can hardly

be supposed to have been doing what he wanted to do

or acting of his own free will. There was evidence

from which a submission on the part of the

respondent and a restraint of his liberty could

properly have been inferred, as it was inferred."

See also the case of Diamond Bank Plc v. Opara (2018)

7 NWLR (pt. 617) 92 at 120.

The fact that there is undisputed evidence that the

respondent processed police bail before he was released on

police bail showed there was restraint on liberty of the

respondent before he was released on police bail.

The stable affidavit evidence of the respondent particularly

paragraph 12 thereof reads -

“The paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were

carried out by the Zone 2 Police Headquarters on the

prompting, instruction and connivance of the 6th

Respondent and his cohorts to harass, intimidate and

humiliate the Applicant over a property that does not

belong to him.

18

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

The annoyance and complaint of the Applicant in his

application is the prompting of the 6th to 9th

Respondents by the 1st to 6th Respondents to harass,

arrest, intimidate, humiliate for the purpose of

causing him embarrassment and odium.”

I agree with the Court below that from the convincing

affidavit of the respondent, the appellants were actively

instrumental in instigating the police (7th – 9th

respondents at the Court below) in infringing his

fundamental right to personal liberty when the controversy

between the appellants and the respondent was sub-judice

as held by the Court below vide the cases of EFCC v.

Diamond Bank Plc (2018) 8 NWLR (pt.1620) 61,

Diamond Bank Plc v. Opara (supra) at 92 forbidding

the use of law enforcement agencies to enforce civil

disputes.

The award of N250,000 damages against the appellants for

the infringement of the respondent’s fundamental rights in

the circumstances of the case was a modest/moderate

award as the monetary award in such matters is

compensatory and should always be of enhanced value to

register revulsion on the infraction of fundamental rights

which is in an upscale class and/or on higher pedestal

than any other rights vide Jim-Jaja v. C.O.P., Rivers State

(2013) 6 NWLR (pt. 1350) 225.

19

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

On the whole, I find no substance in the appeal and hereby

dismiss it and affirm the decision of the Court below with

N200,000 costs against the appellants in favour of the

respondent.

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.: I was

privileged to have read before now the draft of the decision

which has just been rendered by my learned brother,

Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh, JCA. I am in entire agreement

with, and do not desire to add to the reasoning and

conclusion therein contained. I adopt the entire decision as

mine.

GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the

privilege to read in draft, the lead judgment just delivered

by my learned brother, JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, JCA.

I agree that the appeal lacks merit, and it is hereby

dismissed. I abide with the consequential order as to costs

awarded in the said lead judgment.

20

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)

Appearances:

The Appellants were unrepresented but servedhearing notice. For Appellant(s)

Mr. S. S. Ogunkanmi For Respondent(s)

(201

8) LP

ELR-46

578(

CA)