…faults decision of lower court, establishes no cause of action against appellant
The Court of Appeal on Friday pronounced amongst other things that the detention of Capital Oil boss, Ifeanyi Ubah, did not amount to an infringement of his right in the cases of Aig-Imoukhuede v. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah & 4 Ors (CA/L/199/13); Inspector General of Police & Anor V. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah & 4 Ors (CA/L/199A/13); and Cosmas Maduka v Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah & 4 Ors.
Setting aside the decision of the lower court, the appellate court held that the lower court (i.e. Federal High Court) failed to determine what the principal claim of the applicants (Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah and others from Capital Oil & Gas Industries Limited) were, before arriving at its judgment.
Reading the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal, Justice C.E Iyizoba found that the main grouse of the Capital Oil parties was to nullify the Presidential Reports and the court opined categorically that this does not fall under Chapter IV of the constitution. The court in resolving this issue in favour of the appellant held that this suit ought not to have been brought under the FHR rules at all.
The court further held that failure of the lower court to make any pronouncement and establish whether the suit disclosed any cause of action against the appellant was perverse and led to a miscarriage of justice. The court consequently held that it was within its vires (powers) to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act as all the materials needed for such invocation were before the court. And thus, upon a review of all the reliefs claimed by the Capital Oil parties and the affidavit in support of the originating motion, the Court of Appeal established that the suit did not disclose any cause of action against the appellant.
It stated, “Most of the reliefs sought by the applicant applied to the 1st and 2nd respondents at the lower court and none was targeted at the appellant.” This, the court resolved that the trial judge was not justified in awarding compensatory damages to the applicant, Ifeanyi Ubah and Capital Oil and Gas (COG). The court consequently allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s judgment and awarded cost of N50,000.00 in favour of the appellant, Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede.
READ ALSO: Updated: Nigeria’s central bank projects economy to grow 2.0% in 2021
In trying to establish whether the trial court was right to say that the appellant was properly served, the Court of Appeal established that the trial court was right in consolidating the appellant’s preliminary objection and the substantive suit by relying on Order 8 of the Federal High Court rules. It acknowledged that there were discrepancies in the affidavit of service sworn to by West Jonah and the averments contained in the supporting affidavit to the ex-parte motion for substituted service. Nonetheless, it held that the appellant should have filed a counter affidavit upon discovering that the 1st and 2nd respondents (“COG Parties”) did not comply with the direct order of the substituted service that the originating processes be served on any person not below the rank of a receptionist. This issue was, therefore, resolved against the appellant.
In the appeal, IGP v. Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah (CA/L/199A/2013), the court held that counsel for the applicant’s (Ajibola Oluyede) arguments defied understanding. The court noted that since there is no cause of action disclosed against the appellants, Ifeanyi Ubah and others from Capital Oil ought to have waited until they were charged to court before bringing their action under Section 36(5) of the constitution. The court cannot stop the police from investigating any action. This issue was therefore resolved in favour of the appellants.
In establishing whether the applicants’ suit was not premature and incompetent in the context of Section 36(5) of the 1999 constitution (as amended), the court stated, “Mr. Oluyede totally misconstrued the provisions of the preamble to the Federal High Court rules by suggesting that the provisions of the constitution should adhere to that of the FHC rules.”
To this end, the court agreed with counsel for the appellant, Paul Usoro (SAN) that all other laws must align themselves with the constitution and not the other way round. The court held further that where the provisions of the constitution are clear and unambiguous, they must be given a literal interpretation. It established that counsel for the appellant was right in stating that an investigation process cannot be imported into the provisions of Section 36(5) of the constitution. The court consequently resolved this issue in favour of the appellant (Inspector General of Police), allowing the appeal and awarding the sum of N50,000.00 against Ifeanyi Ubah and others.
Further this, the court also held that failure of the respondents to attach the CTC of the Presidential Interim Reports as required under the Evidence Act made the documents inadmissible. The lower court, therefore, erred in law in nullifying the reports. Similarly, it found that since Justice Abang in another suit instituted by the respondents had earlier held that Ifeanyi Ubah’s detention did not amount to any breach of his right, the lower court ought to have followed that decision.
In the appeal of Cosmas Maduka v Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah & Ors (CA/L/199B/2013), the Court of Appeal also entered judgment in favour of the appellant. It set aside the service on the appellant and further held that the appellant did not infringe on the right of Ifeanyi Ubah and others from Capital Oil and Gas. The sum of N50,000.00 was also awarded in favour of the appellant, Comas Maduka.
THEODORA KIO-LAWSON
