Admin l Sunday, Jan. 06, 2019
OWERRI, Imo, Nigeria – The Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri has upheld the judgment of an Imo State High Court against Julius Berger Nigeria Plc and the Nigeria Police on the enforcement right of a Lagos based human right crusader, Mr. Emeka Ozoani .
The court which upheld the N100,000 as cost of litigation however raised the cost of damages sought from N25 million to N30 million putting into consideration the rate of inflation and a fall in the standard of living since the 2013 when the Imo State High Court delivered judgment on the case of enforcement of fundamental rights brought against Julius Berger Nigeria Plc and the Nigeria Police by human rights lawyer, Emeka Ozoani. The appeal also noted that the sum is a far cry from the N50 billion, sought by the claimant for unlawful violation of his fundamental rights.
“Where there is suspicion, it must be reasonable. It is the duty of Police to investigate crimes, but not to be used as tool of oppression by unscrupulous litigants in pursuit of their mischief. In a situation such as in this case, where the 2nd respondents is suspected of forgery, it is not for the 1st set of respondents by the instigation of the appellant to proceed to humiliate and degrade him the way they did without proof of crime.
“ Even if he was found wanting it is not for respondents to manhandled him the way they did in the court premises”, the Appeal Court ruled and that in the administration of justice the police are to prevent crime, investigate allegation of crime and enforce laws and regulation but went beyond the scope of their duties by falsely and wrongly arresting the person, battering person etc, then become culpable of criminal acts.
The Imo State High Court had on February 2013 in a judgment held that police grossly violated the fundamental rights of Mr. Emeka Ozoani, for declaring him ‘category “A” wanted person’ published in Thisday Newspaper of September 4, 2012.
Following the publication, the lawyer filed the suit against the Inspector General of Police, the Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone 9 Umuahia, ASP P.S. Njoku, Prosecuting officer in charge of OW/373c/2011 Zone 9,Umuahia, Peter Ogunyanwo, DCP Zone 9 Umuahia and Julius Berger Nigeria Plc as 1st to 5th respondents respectively.
In the suit delineated HOW/654/2012 Ozoani asked the court for enforcement of his fundamental right, an order to set aside the declaration of the applicant as a ‘category “A” wanted person by respondents as contained in the newspaper publication of September 4, 2012, an order of perpetual injunction restraining and directing the respondents to jointly and severally tender apology to the applicant and also claimed damages of N50 billion for the unlawful violation of has fundamental rights.
Prior to the suit, the police had arrested, manhandled and assaulted the lawyer in the court premises over allegation of forgery in the case of How/581/2007 Mrs Philoma Ugo V. Julius Berger (Nigeria) Plc wherein he appeared as a counsel to Ugo.
The court had in the judgment held that in the administration of justice, the police are to prevent crime, investigate allegation of crime and enforce laws and regulation but went beyond the scope of their duties by falsely and wrongly arresting the person, battering person etc, then become culpable of criminal acts.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Julius Berger Nig. Plc and the Nigeria Police (respondents) proceeded to the Court of Appeal challenging the judgment. Also, Ozoani thereafter cross appealed on the cost awarded in his favour.
The three panel of judges, Rapheal Chikwe Agbo, Ayobode O.Lokulo-Sodipe and Rita Nosakhare Pemu presided over the appeal upheld the high court judgment.
The court of appeal held that, “Where there is suspicion, it must be reasonable. It is the duty of Police to investigate crimes, but not to be used as tool of oppression by unscrupulous litigants in pursuit of their mischief.
“In a situation such as in this case, where the 2nd respondents is suspected of forgery, it is not for the 1st set of respondents by the instigation of the appellant to proceed to humiliate and degrade him the way they did without proof of crime. Even if he was found wanting it is not for respondents to manhandled him the way they did in the court premises.”
The court further stated that the fact that the respondent is a Notary Public and Commissioner for Oaths of Nigeria gives credence to his good faith. The court therefore resolved the seven issued raised in favour of 2nd respondent (Barrister Emeka Ozoani).
The court held that, the court below did not in its appraisal, seek to relitigate any matter. It only referred to it in appraising the facts. “In this case, what are the fact and circumstances? I have given earlier in all .. but suffice it to say that the case involving Julius Berger Nig.Plc and Mrs. Philomena Ugo wherein applicant was counsel for Mrs. Philomena Ugo was the subject of How/581/2007 in which judgment was delivered on 26/9/2009 and that the judgment is the subject of an appeal at the Court of Appeal holden at Owerri in CA/OW/146/2010 Julius Berger Nig. Plc v.Mrs Philomena Ugo where the appellant has also applied to adduced fresh evidence which they did not lead at high Court…
“Does this amount to the court below raising the issue of Estoppels suo motu? The answer is an emphatic No. The lives and personal dignity of a being is sacrosant. The law and indeed public policy would frown at on attempt by big multinational companies who think that they are larger than life, to destroy the lives, hopes and aspiration of person, with intention of using technicalities to cover their trial.
“The courts would lift the veil to see clearly what obtained and do justice accordingly just as the court below did in this case. The issue is resolved in favour of 2nd respondent and against the appellant.
“The totality is that the appeal is devoid of merit and same is dismissed in it’s a entirety with N100,000.00 cost in favour of 2nd respondent.”
In resolving the issues raised by the 5th respondent/cross appellant, that the sum of N25 million court awarded for gross violation of the appellants fundamental right to personal liberty, dignity of human person and freedom of movement inclusive of medical treatment was too low as he claimed N50 billion, the court held that “when a person is subjected to being treated like trash, his dignity and self-esteem is done away with. In a situation where this obtains, whoever is responsible for that infraction of the fundamental right of being must be ready to face the music by way of compensation in exemplary damages. The life of a man is priceless.
Justice Rita Pemu while delivering the lead judgment said, “It is no gainsaying that the economic downturn is endemic and keeps going down. The 5th respondents/ cross appellant is a legal practitioner. A respected one at that! In the course of carrying out his legitimate duties, he is pounced on with levity. His body and soul are bruised and his emotions toyed with.
“This is despicable. It against public policy for those who are suppose to enforce the rule of law to collude with big multinational companies to oppress the people. The time has come in this country to cry aloud against these nefarious activities.
“The average man on the street should be able to walk the streets without fear of being molested by powers that be. The issue of award of damages is discretionary and I am tempted not to interfere with the amount damages awarded the 5th respondent /cross appellant.
But with respect of N25 million is a far away from amount claimed by the respondent/ cross appellant. I would award the sum of N30 million because of dire economic situation right now. It was bad enough in the year 2013 when judgment was delivered in this matter. It is even worse today economically.
“In the circumstances, I hereby awarded the sum of N30 million to the respondent instead of N25million awarded by the court below. The cross appeal succeed. In part and I so order. N100,000.00 cost in favour of 5th respondent/cross appellant.”
