LawPavilion Online


Back

ALHAJI SHEHU OLORUNLAMBE & ORS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KWARA STATE & ORS

(2018) LPELR-45691(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 28th day of August, 2018

CA/IL/85/16


Before Their Lordships

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria


Between

1. ALHAJI SHEHU
OLORUNLAMBE
(Representing Elesin family)
2. ALHAJI IBRAHIM DENDE
(Representing Idiape family)
3. ALHAJI KEHINDE MOGAJI
(Representing Ogunjemi
family)
4. ALHAJI AHMED AYINDE
(Representing Ajibesin family)
5. ALHAJI ADEBAYO ALAWO
(Representing Gesinde family)
6. ALHAJI SALIU ADIO
(Representing Laduba family)
7. ALHAJI SAKARIYAU MOGAJI
(Representing Akamon family) - Appellant(s)

AND

1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KWARA STATE
2. O/C SARS SP TUNDE MOHAMMED
3. ISIAKA ANAFI
4. ADAM OLOBI - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure
FACTS:
The appeal is against the Ruling of the Federal High Court delivered on the 19th day of April, 2016 by O.O. Oguntoyinbo, J., in which the Federal High Court suo motu raised the issue of jurisdiction on the competency of the  Court to hear and determine the Appellants' application for the enforcement of their fundamental rights against the Respondents on a matter which the trial Court held bordered on land dispute. The Court after hearing the parties held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants' application and struck out the matter. The background facts are that the Appellants as applicants filed an application for themselves and on behalf of their respective families for the enforcement of their fundamental rights, pursuant to the provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 claiming some declaratory reliefs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

On the Appellants' part, by their joint affidavit evidence maintained that their family land was never acquired nor compensation paid for same but, that the 3rd - 4th Respondents employed the services of the 1st - 2nd Respondents to effect their arrest and detention in order to intimidate, harass, embarrass, threaten the appellants and their families with death and dehumanizing or subjecting the appellants to degrading treatment. It was alleged that the 3rd - 4th respondents embarked on using the 1st - 2nd respondents in order to take possession of the appellants' family land situated at Madi - Ogundele Road, behind Oloje Low Cost-Housing Estate Ilorin. The 3rd and 4th respondents alleged that the land at Oloje/Ogidi Area, Ilorin was acquired and compensation paid to the beneficiaries while the 1st - 2nd Respondents alleged that documentary evidence was presented, while the appellants made out that none of the documents showing acquisition of the land and payment of compensation was exhibited at the trial Court yet the 1st and 2nd Respondents by their report made out that the land was acquired by the Federal Government and embarked on massive arrest,  detention, intimidation, destruction of property and harassment of the appellants.  After parties were heard on the issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter in that the issue for determination was not covered by Section 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the Constitution). The Federal High Court therefore struck out the originating motion. The appellants as applicants were unhappy with the decision, thus they appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal on the sole issue it couched as follows:

"Considering the provisions of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) was the trial Court right to have declined jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants' application for the enforcement of their fundamental rights bearing in mind the cause of action and the reliefs sought?"

DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the Court  of Appeal found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed same.


Read Full Judgment