n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

UTB (Nig.) Ltd V. Ukpabia (2000) CLR 8(o) (CA)

Brief

  • Proviso
  • Interpretation of statute
  • Jurisdiction

Facts

This is an appeal against the ruling of Amaizu J. sitting at the High Court of Justice, Onitsha in Anambra State of Nigeria on 14th May, 1998.

The applicant/respondent desired to enforce his fundamental right to liberty. He filed an application to that effect pursuant to the provisions of Sections 6, 32(l) and 40(l) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as well as Order 1 rule 2 of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979. He sought a host of five reliefs as can be garnered from pages 20-21 of the transcript record of appeal. And they read as follows:

  • a
    "An order declaring the detention of the applicant from 25/4/97 to 26/4/97 at the instance of the respondent as unlawful, unconstitutional and an infringement of the applicant’s right to the dignity of human person, private and family life freedom of thought and conscience.

An order declaring that the respondent violated the applicant’s fundamental rights as enshrined in Section 32(l)(6) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 when the respondents unlawfully detained and continued to harass and threaten to further arrest and detain the applicant.

An order restraining the respondent by themselves, their servants, agents or privies from infringing the applicant’s fundamental right of human dignity, personal liberty, freedom from harassment and detention.

An award of N10, 000,000.00 (Ten million naira) compensation and or General damages against the respondents jointly and severally for wrongful detention.

An order that the respondents offer a public apology to the applicant.”

It can be seen at pages 47-48 of the record of appeal that an application dated 9-2-98 was filed on the same date by Emeka Mozie, Esq of counsel on behalf of the appellant herein. The prayer therein is for an order striking out or dismissing the present suit on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction in view of the present constitution of the suit. In support of the application, the appellant’s branch Manager deposed to an eight (8)-paragraph affidavit.

After hearing argument of counsel in respect of the preliminary objection, the trial court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the suit and dismissed the preliminary objection.

The appellant was dissatisfied and it appealed to the Court of Appeal

Issues

Whether having regard to the provision to section 230(l)(q), (r) and (s) of the...

Read More