Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library

Brief

Fundamental rights
Abuse of process
Law enforcement agencies
Sections 4 of the Evidence Act 2011
Section 6(h) of the Economic and financial Crimes Commission Act
Section 6(b) of the Economic and financial Crimes Commission Act
Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution
Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009
Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division upturning the decision of Buba J of the Federal High Court, Port-Harcourt Division.

The 2nd & 3rd Respondents were customers of the 1st Respondent bank since 1994. The relationship continued until 2003 when the 1st & 2nd Respondents suspected some discrepancies in the management of their account with the 1st Respondent. They engaged a banking consultant to investigate, and it was allegedly discovered that the 1st Respondent had illegally overcharged the 1st & 2nd Respondents, in the management of their account, to a tune of N10,776, 921.19k refund of which they demanded. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents though not convinced, mutually agreed with the banking consultant that the matter be referred to the Chartered Institute of Banker's Committee on ethics and professionalism for arbitration. The matter was still pending there for arbitration when the 1st Respondent reported the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to the Financial Malpractices Investigation Unit of the Nigeria Police Force C.I.D Annex, Lagos.

Consequently, policemen from Lagos came to Port Harcourt, arrested and detained the 3rd Respondent on 18th April, 2005. The 3rd Respondent was not granted bail until the policemen made him pay N2,000,000.00K to the 1st Respondent. The police further directed the 3rd Respondent to appear before them at Lagos on 10th May, 2005.

In the mean time, the 2nd & 3rd Respondents approached the Federal High Court for leave to apply for enforcement of their fundamental rights, which leave was granted. The 2nd and 3rd respondent thereafter sought the following reliefs:

i
A declaration that the invitation of the 1st Applicant by the 2nd Respondent at the behest of the 1st Respondent is unlawful and a violation of his fundamental right to liberty and dignity of his person and a continuation of the harassment of the Applicants by the 1st Respondent in view of a pending action in this Court in suit no FHC/PH/CS/385/2005 between the Applicants and Diamond Bank Limited and 4 ors.
ii
A declaration that the 2nd Respondent by the enabling Act establishing it, lacks the statutory power to function as a debt collector on behalf of the 1st Respondent or anybody for that matter in matters of commercial contract.
iii
An order of Court restraining the Respondents from disturbing or interfering with the right to liberty of the 1st Applicant through further threat of invitation, arrest, detention, intimidation and unnecessary interrogation or in any other way or manner whatsoever."

The 1st Respondent filed a Counter Affidavit. Appellant also opposed the application for enforcement of fundamental rights by filing a counter affidavit. The parties were heard and the trial Judge in his Ruling, dismissed the application. Dissatisfied, the 2nd & 3rd Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal and granted all the reliefs. Appellant thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court.

EFCC V. Diamond Bank Plc (2018) CLR 4(p) (SC)

Judgement delivered on April 13th 2018

Brief

Facts

Issues