VICE ADMIRAL SAMUEL OLAJIDE AFOLAYAN (RTD)
V
ALHAJI ABUBAKAR ABDULLAHI
COURT OF APPEAL
(ILORIN DIVISION)
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE (PJ) JCA (Presided)
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA JCA
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA JCA (Read the Lead Judgment)
CA/IL/140/2019
FRIDAY, 17 APRIL 2020
Issues:
1. Whether, regard being had to the facts and the entire circumstances of this case, the respondent’s suit was not properly brought and determined under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
2. Whether, considering the affidavit evidence and the entire circumstances of this case, the trial court was not right in confirming the respondent’s position that the appellant’s acts of forcefully seizing and detaining the respondent’s cows as admitted by the appellant himself since 17 May 2017 constitute a violation of the respondent’s right to own, use and enjoy moveable property as guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
3. Whether the learned trial judge was not right in his approach in awarding the damages awarded in favour of enforcement in this case.
Facts:
The respondent filed an action in the trial court, claiming that the appellant’s security officers accosted his son while the latter was rearing respondent’s cows and had forcefully with the aid of a gun detained the cows without justification. That all efforts made to get the cows which were his only source of income free proved abortive as the appellant insisted on a ransom of N5million being paid before release. The respondent therefore filed the action and prayed for declaratory relief to the effect that the detention of the cows was unconstitutional and an infringement of his fundamental right to own, use and enjoyment of personal moveable property enshrined by section 44 of 1999 Constitution, order mandating the release of the cows and for the respondent to tender unreserved apology in 2 national dailies and damages. The appellant filed a preliminary objection to the action. The trial court granted respondent’s claims. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal contending that the lower court erred in determining respondent’s suit under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
