(2018) LPELR-45173(CA)

Transcription

1 HI-QUALITY BAKERY LTD & ANOR v. LONGE & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Calabar Judicial Division Holden at Calabar ON WEDNESDAY, 30TH MAY, 2018 Suit No: CA/C/122/2015 Before Their Lordships: IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA STEPHEN JONAH ADAH JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE 1. HI-QUALITY BAKERY LIMITED 2. ALHAJI MAMZA UMARU Between And 1. MISS THERESA LONGE 2. KINGSLEY UDOH (IPO STATE HOUSING POLICE STATION, CALABAR) 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CROSS RIVER STATE RATIO DECIDENDI 1. APPEAL - CROSS-APPEAL: Nature of a cross-appeal Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal - Appellant(s) - Respondent(s) "For our guide it is necessary to underscore here the nature and the principles governing cross-appeal. In an appeal, the Respondent has the goal of defending the appeal but where he is not satisfied with a finding of the trial Court that he considers fundamental to the case, or where he seeks a reversal of a finding he can only seek redress in the Appeal Court by filing and arguing a cross-appeal. The filing of a cross-appeal does not relieve the Respondent of the task of defending the judgment on appeal, on all other findings therein that he is satisfied with. A cross-appeal can only be filed by a Respondent seeking to correct errors in the judgment or to set aside a finding which is crucial and fundamental to the case. See AJAYI VS. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR ONDO STATE (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 507) P. 231; ELIOCHIN (NIG.) LTD. VS. MBADIWE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 14) P. 47. See the cases of NNPC VS. KLIFCO (NIG.) LTD. (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1255) 209; and LAFIA LOCAL GOVT. VS. THE EXECUTIVE GOV. NASSARAWA STATE & ORS. (2012) 17 NWLR (PT. 1328) 94."Per ADAH, J.C.A. (Pp. 3-4, Paras. D-C) - read in context 2. COURT - JURISDICTION: Effect of a court hearing a matter where it has no jurisdiction "Any exercise of judicial power without jurisdiction is futile and incapable of conferring any legal benefits."per OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (P. 18, Para. D) - read in context

2 3. JURISDICTION - JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Extent of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over matters relating to enforcement of fundamental rights "My Lords, the issues generated here dealing with jurisdiction and the competence of the action against the Appellants are fundamental. In every proceeding where jurisdiction is raised, it is a prime duty for the Court to beam its searchlight on it to have that issue resolved with dispatch. The aspect of jurisdiction raised simply is whether the trial Federal High Court which heard the application had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The parties to this appeal from their respective briefs admitted partly that all High Courts have jurisdiction to entertain fundamental rights application under the Constitution. The only difference is the contention of the Appellants that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain fundamental rights is circumscribed to those enumerated issues in Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The jurisdiction of Courts to entertain the application for fundamental right is as specified in Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution and Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules Section 46(1), (2) of the Constitution provides: 46.- (1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply on a High court for redress. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to her and determine any application made to it in pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that State of any right to which the person who makes the application may be entitled under this Chapter. Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 specifically included Federal High Court in the definition of the Court to hear the application. Over the years, the Supreme Court in a plethora of authorities has settled the issue of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as dispensed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Two of such decisions have been called in by the parties in this case. The Appellants are in the main relying on the decision in the case of ADETONA & ORS. VS. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (2011) (supra) - decided on Friday, 14th day of January, The dictum relied upon by the Appellant is as per I. T. Muhammad, JSC. His Lordship said: "Although, unlike the 1979 Constitution, Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution does not define "High Court", there is no doubt that the term carries the same meaning as given by Section 277(1) of the 1979 Constitution to mean Federal High Court or the High Court of a State. Therefore, where a person's fundamental right is breached, being breached, or about to be breached, the person may apply under Section 46(1) to the Judicial Division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State or that of the Federal Capital Territory in which the breach occurred or is occurring, or about to occur. This is irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation or the State of the Federal Capital Territory. However, it should be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is whether the Fundamental Rights threatened, or breached fails within the enumerated matters on which the Court has jurisdiction. Thus, fundamental rights arising from matters outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court..." (Underlining mine). The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent relied on the case of BENSON AGBULE VS. WARRI REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL CO. LTD. (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1350) 318 per Ogunbiyi, JSC. His Lordship held: "On a gruesome and careful determination of the case of NEPA VS. EDEGBERO.. per Ogundare, JSC, while interpreting the constitutional enactment as provided in paragraph (q), (r) and (s) of Section 230 (i), held the following pronouncement of pages of the report and said; from what I have said earlier in this judgment, the aim of paragraphs (q), (r) and (s) of Sub-section 230 was to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court in matters in the Federal Government or any of its Agencies was a party. A State High Court would no longer have jurisdiction in such matters notwithstanding the nature of the claim in the action." From these decisions, it is settled beyond controversy that both the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in actions for the enforcement of the fundamental rights but their divergence from the authority of ADETONA VS. IGELE GENERAL ENT. LTD. is in respect of the subject matter of the right breached. If the right breached is within the context of the enumerated matters in which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction, then the Federal High Court can entertain the matter. The authority of ADETONA VS. IGELE GENERAL ENT. LTD. (supra) binds this Court and this Court had relied upon it in OSUNDE VS. BABA (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 781) 1482 cited by the learned counsel for the Appellants. The complaint of the 1st Respondent at the Court below is that she was unlawfully detained by the Police and that her right to liberty had been breached. The 1st Respondent in her affidavit before the Court below had deposed to the averments about the parties and the nature of her complaint. The averments are as follows: 1. That I am the Applicant on record and by virtue of which position I am well at home with the material facts of this case. 2. That I was employed in January 2014 by the 1st Respondent as a Sales Personnel in her bakery factory at No. 102 Ndidem Usang Iso Road, Calabar, Cross River State. The letter of appointment is hereby attached and marked Exhibit "HIA.1". 3. That the 1st Respondent is the company which employed me as a Sales Personnel and it is her money I was falsely accused of stealing and on which grounds my appointment was terminated.?4. That the 2nd Respondent is an employee and an agent of the 3rd Respondent, who used his position to harass me and ensured that I was deprived of my liberty unjustly and thrown into a horrid cell without justifiable reason. I was tortured, physically and psychologically such that I could not sleep for the two (2) days of my arrest and detention. 5. That the 3rd Respondent is the principal actor in the humiliation, harassment and inhuman treatment I suffered as he was the person who instigated my wrongful arrest and detention and who is presently boasting of how he is going to use his money to ensure further maltreatment to my person knowing that I am an orphan. 6. That the 4th Respondent is the investigating police officer who is under the control and command of the 5th Respondent. He handcuffed me and ensured that I was thoroughly beaten when I did not commit any offence. In brief, he and the 2nd Respondent were cruel in dealing with me in my innocence. From the narration of the 1st Respondent in the affidavit in support of her application, it is certain that the 1st and 3rd are not agents or agency of the Federal Government. The 3rd Respondent to the application at the Court below which she said was the principal actor in the humiliation, harassment and inhuman treatment was the person who signed the letter of employment of the Applicant "EXHIBIT HIA.1" and letter of termination "EXHIBIT HIA.3" as the Chairman of the 1st Respondent now 1st Appellant. The 4th Respondent to the application is the investigating police officer under the command of the 5th Respondent (Commissioner of Police, Cross River State). The principal actors in the instant case are all not agents or agencies of the Federal Government. It is only the 4th and 5th Respondents that can be said to be connected as members of the Nigeria Police Force created under Section 214(1) of the 1999 Constitution. The role of the Police is under Section 4 of the Police Act. The law specifies that: The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other act. The police was invited by the Appellants and the 1st Respondent was arrested by them. This arrest and detention is what informs the complaint of the 1st Respondent to enforce her fundamental right. The question to ask in the light of the decision in ADETONA & ORS. VS. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (Supra) is whether the fundamental rights threatened or breached fall within the enumerated matters on which the Court has jurisdiction. The answer is obvious. It is NO! That is where the matter must end. By the operation of the doctrine of stare decisis, no one can go any inch outside what the Supreme Court has decided. On the authority of the decision in ADETONA VS. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (supra). I hold that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to take the application of the 1st Respondent. Since that is the situation, the decision of the Federal High Court in this case is in excess of its jurisdiction. The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court below given without jurisdiction is accordingly struck out. Since the decision is annulled, there is nothing to cross-appeal on. The cross-appeal is consequentially struck out."per ADAH, J.C.A. (Pp. 9-17, Paras. C-E) - read in context 4. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ISSUE OF JURISDICTION: When an objection to the jurisdiction of Court can be raised "To start with it is well settled that jurisdiction is very fundamental in every case to be heard by the Court. Due to its importance an issue of jurisdiction can be raised even at the appellate Court for the first time. You can see the cases of ELABANJO & ANOR. VS. DAWODU (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1001) 76; A. G. KWARA STATE & ANOR. VS. ADEYEMO & ORS. (2016) LPELR (SC); OTUKPO VS. JOHN (2000) 8 NWLR (PT. 669) 507; and NSIRIM VS. AMADI (2016) LPELR (SC)."Per ADAH, J.C.A. (P. 6, Paras. A-C) - read in context

3

4 STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Calabar Division in Suit No. FHC/CA/M84/2014, delivered on the 11th day of May, The facts of this case are that the 1st Respondent was an employee of the 1st Appellant. She was employed by the 1st Appellant on 1st January, 2014 as a Sales Personnel. Some months into that job, the 1st Respondent was arrested by the police at the instigation of the officials of the 1st Appellant. She was aggrieved and applied to the Court below for the enforcement of her fundamental rights. Her reliefs before the Court below are as follows: a. A DECLARATION that the arrest, in-human treatment and detention of the Applicant in cell without access to food or water without justifiable reason on the morning of the 7th July, 2014 till the night of 8th July, 2014 without trial is unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void. b. A DECLARATION that the handcuffing of the Applicant and bundling of her into the motor van of the 1st Respondent meant for goods violates her right to dignity on human 1

5 person as guaranteed under Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. c. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents by themselves, their servants, cohorts, privies or agents from further harassing, threatening to arrest, detaining and black-mailing her in public. d. AN ORDER directing the Respondents to pay the sum of N30,000, (Thirty Million Naira) only jointly and severally as damages for breach of the fundamental rights of the Applicant without justifiable reasons. e. A WRITTEN APOLOGY by all the Respondents to the Applicant. f. And for such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and expedient to make in the circumstances. The parties joined issues on this application. The Court below then heard the application of the Applicant now 1st Respondent in this appeal and found for her in its judgment delivered on 11th day of April, Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellants filed their notice of appeal on 14th May, The record of appeal was transmitted on 7th day of July, The Appellants brief of argument was filed on 2

6 3rd June, 2016 but deemed properly filed on 17th October, The 1st Respondent filed 1st Respondent s brief on 6th June, 2016 but deemed on 17th October, 2017 duly filed and served. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellant adopted his brief and urged the Court to allow this appeal. The 1st Respondent whose brief was settled by Aniekan Essiet, Esq., adopted her brief as her argument and urged the Court to dismiss this appeal. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents in this appeal filed a notice of cross-appeal which was transmitted to this Court via the supplementary record of appeal. That record was transmitted on 30th March, The notice of crossappeal was filed on 16th July, The cross-appeal has three grounds of appeal. For our guide it is necessary to underscore here the nature and the principles governing cross-appeal. In an appeal, the Respondent has the goal of defending the appeal but where he is not satisfied with a finding of the trial Court that he considers fundamental to the case, or where he seeks a reversal of a finding he can only seek redress in the Appeal Court by filing and arguing a cross-appeal. 3

7 The filing of a cross-appeal does not relieve the Respondent of the task of defending the judgment on appeal, on all other findings therein that he is satisfied with. A crossappeal can only be filed by a Respondent seeking to correct errors in the judgment or to set aside a finding which is crucial and fundamental to the case. See AJAYI VS. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR ONDO STATE (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 507) P. 231; ELIOCHIN (NIG.) LTD. VS. MBADIWE(1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 14) P. 47. See the cases of NNPC VS. CLIFCO (NIG.) LTD. (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1255) 209; and LAFIA LOCAL GOVT. VS. THE EXECUTIVE GOV. NASSARAWA STATE & ORS. (2012) 17 NWLR (PT. 1328) 94. By the nature of the cross-appeal, the appeal needs be heard first, I shall therefore consider the appeal first before the consideration of the cross-appeal. This I now do. I had earlier pointed out that the Appellant and the Respondents filed briefs of argument. These briefs which contain their various arguments of the appeal were respectively adopted by the parties. The Appellants distilled three issues for determination. These three issues were also adopted by the Respondent for determination. 4

8 In this circumstance, three issues framed by the Appellants in the instant case are to be considered in this appeal. These issues are captured as follows: 1. Whether the Federal High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent s case at the Court below. (Ground 1). 2. Whether the Appellants who merely lodged a complaint of stealing to the Police can jointly be held liable for infringing the fundamental right of the 1st Respondent. (Grounds 2 & 3). 3. Whether in the circumstances, the trial Court was right in law when it made findings which were not borne out of evidence of parties thereby failing to evaluate evidence of parties properly and same occasioned a miscarriage of justice. (Grounds 4 & 5). For the sake of convenience, issues 1 and 2 will be considered together while issue 3 will be considered solely. ISSUES ONE AND TWO These are issues of whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the case of the 1st Respondent and whether the Appellants can jointly be held liable for the infringement of the fundamental right of the 1st Respondent. 5

9 To start with it is well settled that jurisdiction is very fundamental in every case to be heard by the Court. Due to its importance an issue of jurisdiction can be raised even at the appellate Court for the first time. You can see the cases of ELABANJO & ANOR. VS. DAWODU (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1001) 76; A. G. KWARA STATE & ANOR. VS. ADEYEMO & ORS. (2016) LPELR (SC);OTUKPO VS. JOHN (2000) 8 NWLR (PT. 669) 507; and NSIRIM VS. AMADI (2016) LPELR (SC). The learned counsel for the Appellants raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear this case in the first place. The Appellants in their brief canvassed that a careful perusal of the claims and grounds of the claims of the 1st Respondent, shows that the trial Court was incompetent to adjudicate on the case of the 1st Respondent. Learned counsel for the Appellants conceded that it is beyond dispute that both the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain issues bothering on fundamental human rights. He however claimed that for the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction in the circumstance, the reliefs or claims must arise or flow from the matters in which the Federal 6

10 High Court has jurisdiction as enumerated in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). He relied on Section 251 of the said Constitution and the case of ADETONA VS. IGELE GENERAL ENT. LTD. (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 569) 1025/ (2011) NWLR (PT. 1247) 535, 564. The learned counsel canvassed then that the claim/reliefs of the 1st Respondent are claims arising from the matters outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the Appellants further relied on the decision of this Court in OSUNDE VS. BABA (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 781) 1482 which he said follow the decision of ADETONA VS. IGELE GENERAL ENT. LTD. (supra). He urged the Court to resolve issue one in favour of the Appellants. For issue two the learned counsel for the Appellants relied on Section 35(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution. He contended that the Appellants upon report of stealing to the police, the police arrested the 1st Respondent and that what the Appellants did was not more than a report of crime to the police for investigation. He relied on the cases of ONAH VS. OKENWA (2010) 7 NWLR (PT. 1194) 512, 517; FAWEHINMI VS. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR (PT. 769) 606, 645; 7

11 ISHENO VS. JULIUS BERGER (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 415) 1632 and DURU & ANOR. VS. NWAGWU (2006) 5 SC (PT. 111) He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants. The Respondent in her brief canvassed on issue one that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction on suits having the Federal Government or any of its agencies as parties irrespective of the subject matter. He relied on the cases of BENSON AGBULE VS. WARRI REFINERY & PETROCHEMICAL CO. LTD. (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1350) 318;INEGBEDION VS. DR. SELE-OJEMEN & ANOR. (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 1336) 211. He submitted that both the subject matter and the parties are within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. On issue two, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent canvassed that Section 35(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) strengthens the Respondents position as against that of the Appellant. He referred to the fact that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents investigated complaint against the 1st Respondent and found that the 1st Respondent never stole any money or committed any crime before they went to arrest and later detained her. 8

12 That the fact that the Appellants complained to the Police and gave out their stationary goods motor van to convey the 1st Respondent to the Station was suggestive of the fact that the Appellants wanted to ensure that the Police did their biddings out of bad faith. That the arrest of the 1st Respondent was carried out mala fide. He referred to the case of FAJEMIROKUN VS. CBN LTD. (2009) NWLR (PT. 1135) 588, 600. He also referred to the case of SPDC (NIG.) LTD. VS. OLAREWAJU (2002) 16 NWLR (PT. 856) 654. My Lords, the issues generated here dealing with jurisdiction and the competence of the action against the Appellants are fundamental. In every proceeding where jurisdiction is raised, it is a prime duty for the Court to beam its searchlight on it to have that issue resolved with dispatch. The aspect of jurisdiction raised simply is whether the trial Federal High Court which heard the application had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The parties to this appeal from their respective briefs admitted partly that all High Courts have jurisdiction to entertain fundamental rights application under the Constitution. The only difference is the contention of the 9

13 Appellants that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain fundamental rights is circumscribed to those enumerated issues in Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The jurisdiction of Courts to entertain the application for fundamental right is as specified in Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution and Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules Section 46(1), (2) of the Constitution provides: 46.- (1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply on a High court for redress. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to her and determine any application made to it in pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that State of any right to which the person who makes the application may be entitled under this Chapter. 10

14 Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 specifically included Federal High Court in the definition of the Court to hear the application. Over the years, the Supreme Court in a plethora of authorities has settled the issue of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as dispensed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Two of such decisions have been called in by the parties in this case. The Appellants are in the main relying on the decision in the case of ADETONA & ORS. VS. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (2011) (supra) decided on Friday, 14th day of January, The dictum relied upon by the Appellant is as per I. T. Muhammad, JSC. His Lordship said: Although, unlike the 1979 Constitution, Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution does not define High Court, there is no doubt that the term carries the same meaning as given by Section 277(1) of the 1979 Constitution to mean Federal High Court or the High Court of a State. Therefore, where a person s fundamental right is breached, being breached, or about to be breached, the person may apply under Section 11

15 46(1) to the Judicial Division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State or that of the Federal Capital Territory in which the breach occurred or is occurring, or about to occur. This is irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation or the State of the Federal Capital Territory. However, it should be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is whether the Fundamental Rights threatened, or breached fails within the enumerated matters on which the Court has jurisdiction. Thus, fundamental rights arising from matters outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court. (Underlining mine). The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent relied on the case of BENSON AGBULE VS. WARRI REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL CO. LTD. (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1350) 318 per Ogunbiyi, JSC. His Lordship held: On a gruesome and careful determination of the case of NEPA VS. EDEGBERO.. per Ogundare, JSC, while interpreting the constitutional enactment as provided in paragraph (q), (r) and (s) of Section 230 (1), held the 12

16 following pronouncement of pages of the report and said; from what I have said earlier in this judgment, the aim of paragraphs (q), (r) and (s) of Sub-section 230 was to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court in matters in the Federal Government or any of its Agencies was a party. A State High Court would no longer have jurisdiction in such matters notwithstanding the nature of the claim in the action." From these decisions, it is settled beyond controversy that both the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in actions for the enforcement of the fundamental rights but their divergence from the authority of ADETONA VS. IGELE GENERAL ENT. LTD. is in respect of the subject matter of the right breached. If the right breached is within the context of the enumerated matters in which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction, then the Federal High Court can entertain the matter. The authority of ADETONA VS. IGELE GENERAL ENT. LTD. (supra) binds this Court and this Court had relied upon it in OSUNDE VS. BABA (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 781) 1482 cited by the learned counsel for the Appellants. 13

17 The complaint of the 1st Respondent at the Court below is that she was unlawfully detained by the Police and that her right to liberty had been breached. The 1st Respondent in her affidavit before the Court below had deposed to the averments about the parties and the nature of her complaint. The averments are as follows: 1. That I am the Applicant on record and by virtue of which position I am well at home with the material facts of this case. 2. That I was employed in January 2014 by the 1st Respondent as a Sales Personnel in her bakery factory at No. 102 Ndidem Usang Iso Road, Calabar, Cross River State. The letter of appointment is hereby attached and marked Exhibit HIA That the 1st Respondent is the company which employed me as a Sales Personnel and it is her money I was falsely accused of stealing and on which grounds my appointment was terminated. 4. That the 2nd Respondent is an employee and an agent of the 3rd Respondent, who used his position to harass me and ensured that I was deprived of my liberty unjustly and thrown into a horrid cell without justifiable reason. I was tortured, physically and psychologically such that I could not sleep for the two (2) days of my arrest and detention. 14

18 5. That the 3rd Respondent is the principal actor in the humiliation, harassment and inhuman treatment I suffered as he was the person who instigated my wrongful arrest and detention and who is presently boasting of how he is going to use his money to ensure further maltreatment to my person knowing that I am an orphan. 6. That the 4th Respondent is the investigating police officer who is under the control and command of the 5th Respondent. He handcuffed me and ensured that I was thoroughly beaten when I did not commit any offence. In brief, he and the 2nd Respondent were cruel in dealing with me in my innocence. From the narration of the 1st Respondent in the affidavit in support of her application, it is certain that the 1st and 3rd are not agents or agency of the Federal Government. The 3rd Respondent to the application at the Court below which she said was the principal actor in the humiliation, harassment and inhuman treatment was the person who signed the letter of employment of the Applicant EXHIBIT HIA.1" and letter of termination EXHIBIT HIA.3 as the Chairman 15

19 of the 1st Respondent now 1st Appellant. The 4th Respondent to the application is the investigating police officer under the command of the 5th Respondent (Commissioner of Police, Cross River State). The principal actors in the instant case are all not agents or agencies of the Federal Government. It is only the 4th and 5th Respondents that can be said to be connected as members of the Nigeria Police Force created under Section 214(1) of the 1999 Constitution. The role of the Police is under Section 4 of the Police Act. The law specifies that: The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other act. The police was invited by the Appellants and the 1st Respondent was arrested by them. This arrest and detention is what informs the complaint of the 1st Respondent to enforce her fundamental right. 16

20 The question to ask in the light of the decision in ADETONA & ORS. VS. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (Supra) is whether the fundamental rights threatened or breached fall within the enumerated matters on which the Court has jurisdiction. The answer is obvious. It is NO! That is where the matter must end. By the operation of the doctrine of stare decisis, no one can go any inch outside what the Supreme Court has decided. On the authority of the decision in ADETONA VS. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (supra). I hold that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to take the application of the 1st Respondent. Since that is the situation, the decision of the Federal High Court in this case is in excess of its jurisdiction. The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court below given without jurisdiction is accordingly struck out. Since the decision is annulled, there is nothing to cross-appeal on. The cross-appeal is consequentially struck out. Parties are to bear their respective costs. IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.: I concur with the reasoning reached in the judgment just delivered by His Lordship, Adah, JCA, to the 17

21 conclusive effect that the instant appeal is meritorious, on the ground that the trial Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case before it. Thus, the appeal is allowed by me. The decision of the Court below, having been given without jurisdiction, is hereby struck out. The cross-appeal is consequently hereby struck out. JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege to read the draft of the lead judgment just delivered herein by my learned brother STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JCA and I totally endorse the reasoning and conclusions therein. Any exercise of judicial power without jurisdiction is futile and incapable of conferring any legal benefits. For the more detailed reasons in the lead judgment, I equally find merit in this appeal and I accordingly allow it. I adopt the consequential orders in the lead judgment as mine. 18

22 Appearances: E. Sani, Esq. For Appellant(s) Aniekan Essiet, Esq. For Respondent(s)