Sometime in 1968, the father of the 5th respondent, one George Udofia now granted permission to the 6th respondent to operate a new church named Christ True Gospel Mission on an empty church building on the land owned by the father of the 5th respondent and formerly used by the African Apostolic Church.

The new church became properly established and was incorporated in 1991, with the efforts of the 6th respondent and others, it was incorporated as a legal entity with 3rd respondent as one of the trustees along with the 6th respondents the 1st and 2nd appellants.

In 1996, as a result of some misunderstanding in the church, the 6th respond¬ent as the overseer of the church resigned as a trustee and member of the church and formed a new church called Christ's Will Mission. Having resigned his posi¬tion in the church, the 5th respondent as the landlord of the premises where the Christ's True Gospel Mission is situated wrote on behalf of the family to the 1st and 2nd appellant's giving them notice to quit the premises. The 6th respondent who was occupying the premises however complied with the notice to quit and va¬cated the premises without the knowledge of the 1St and 2nd appellants. Mean¬while, a serious dispute erupted between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants on the one hand and the 5th respondent's family on the other hand over the ownership of the premises of the church.

The respondent's alleged that without any criminal charges pending against them in any court of law, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants, by some false information or complaint to the Police, instigated 4th and 5th who are Police Officers to arrest the 2nd to 7th respondents and detained them in a filthy and miserably congested Police cell at S. I. B. Ikot Akpan Abia between 13th and 14th June, 1997 and were only released after the 4th and 5th appellants had extorted from them the sum of N12, 000. The respondents also alleged that the 1ST and 3rd appellants boasted and threat¬ened that they would continue to use the Police to detain, torture and extort money from them.

The appellants' case, was that the premises of their church, the Christ's True Gospel Mission, was freely and without any conditions donated by the original owner, the late Ete George Udofia (father of the 5th respondent) to them on 9th May, 1969, to build the church. That the church had been in peaceable posses¬sion of same since 1969 without any adverse claim from any person or group of persons including the applicants. They insisted that the land, on account of the grant by late George Udofia, belongs exclusively to the church.

It was the appellants contention that the 6th respondent without authority wrote to the 5th respondent purporting to hand over the church and the land to the 5th respondent's family and there was threat of the use of force to eject the church from the land. That even the church was invaded on 6th may, 1997, leading to disruption of church proceedings.

The appellants also stated that despite the interim injunction obtained in suit HET/2/97 instituted by the 3rd appellant against the 5th, 6th, 7th respondent at the Etinan High Court, Akwa Ibom State, the respondent on 9th May, 1997, still disrupted the church proceeding chased the members away and barricaded the church premises. It was as a result of this act that they reported to the Police who arrested the respondents. The appellant denied maltreating the respondents and further asserted that their complaint to the Police was legitimately made.

The respondents by a motion ex-parte filed in 29th July, 1997, sought the leave of the trial court to appeal for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Leave was granted. The respondents on 20 August, 1997, filed a motion on notice seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs and also damages in the sum of N1, 500,000.00

After hearing the arguments on the motion on notice, the trial court found that the respondents were deprived of their liberty. It therefore awarded damages in their favour in the sum of N20,000.00 for breach of their fundamental rights.

Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed against the judgment the Court of Appeal.