MR. ADESINA AKINBAJO V. MR. ISMAILA OLOWOLAYEMO & ORS. (2016)

Background

This appeal arose from proceedings for the enforcement of fundamental rights commenced by the first respondent, Mr. Ismaila Olowolayemo, before the High Court of Ogun State in Suit No. M/258/2013. The first respondent operated an automobile mart in Ibadan and displayed for sale a fairly used grey-coloured 2007 Infiniti FX 35 SUV. The appellant believed that the vehicle resembled, and might be, his stolen SUV. He therefore reported the matter to the police.

Following the report, the first respondent was initially invited by the police at Orita Challenge Police Station, Ibadan. After the vehicle’s documentation and chassis number were examined, the police were not satisfied that it was the appellant’s stolen vehicle. The first respondent was released, while the appellant was asked to produce particulars of the allegedly stolen SUV. Instead of resolving the matter through the ongoing investigation, the appellant subsequently caused a further report to be made to the Ogun State Police Command. The first respondent was then re-arrested and detained at the State Police Headquarters, Eleweran, Abeokuta, from 3 October 2013 until 18 October 2013, without being charged before a court. His vehicle was eventually released on 4 November 2013.

The first respondent claimed that the arrest, detention, harassment and interference with his vehicle violated his constitutional rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty and fair hearing under sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. He sought declarations, a perpetual injunction, N5 million in damages and a written public apology in a national newspaper. The High Court granted the reliefs. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant’s report and suspicion regarding the vehicle gave him reasonable cause to procure the first respondent’s re-arrest and detention.
2. Whether the trial court properly relied on the first respondent’s largely uncontroverted affidavit evidence.
3. Whether the trial court wrongly expunged the appellant’s second counter-affidavit and failed to call oral evidence to resolve alleged conflicts.
4. Whether apportioning or splitting the damages among the appellant and the police respondents amounted to granting a relief that was not claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that a person who causes or procures the arrest and detention of another on the basis of unreasonable suspicion may be liable for the resulting wrongful arrest. Although a citizen is entitled to report suspected crime to the police, that right does not justify an unfounded or continuing intervention where available facts have substantially disproved the suspicion. In this case, the two vehicles had different chassis numbers, and the first respondent produced substantial documentary evidence showing the lawful importation and ownership of his vehicle. The appellant had no reasonable basis for causing the matter to be transferred to Ogun State or for procuring the re-arrest while the Ibadan investigation remained unresolved.

The court further held that the police detention for approximately sixteen days without arraignment, after the relevant facts had been verified, was oppressive, unjustified and inconsistent with the first respondent’s constitutional right to personal liberty. The appellant was liable along with the police respondents because his unreasonable complaint set the unlawful arrest and detention in motion.

Court Findings

The court accepted the first respondent’s affidavit evidence because the police respondents filed no brief and did not effectively controvert the material facts. Uncontradicted evidence, particularly where credible and supported by documentary exhibits, should ordinarily be accepted and acted upon by a court. The court relied on authorities including Alagbe v. Abimbola, Adeyemi v. Lan & Baker (Nig.) Ltd and Akinrimade v. Ajayi.

The Court also upheld the decision to discountenance and expunge the appellant’s second counter-affidavit. The affidavit did not comply with sections 115(3) and (4) of the Evidence Act 2011 because the deponent failed to provide the required particulars concerning the source, time, place and circumstances of information allegedly received. This was not a denial of fair hearing; the appellant had an opportunity to present a properly compliant response.

The alleged conflict concerning whether sawdust was present in the vehicle was considered trivial when compared with the documentary evidence, especially the differing chassis numbers and importation documents. Oral evidence was therefore unnecessary. Affidavit conflicts require oral evidence only where they are material and cannot be resolved through the documents and surrounding circumstances.

Finally, the court held that dividing the damages between the appellant and the police respondents did not alter the relief claimed. It was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, particularly because exemplary damages may be awarded to mark serious violations of legal or constitutional rights and to discourage abuse by state agents or private individuals. A previous decision cannot dictate the precise manner in which discretion must be exercised.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit. The judgment of the Ogun State High Court delivered on 11 February 2014 was affirmed, with the parties ordered to bear their respective costs.

Significance

The decision confirms that reporting a suspected offence is not an absolute defence to liability for wrongful arrest. A complainant must have reasonable grounds for the suspicion and may be liable where his conduct causes an unjustified arrest or detention. It also illustrates the importance of documentary evidence in fundamental-rights proceedings, the treatment of uncontroverted affidavit evidence, and the availability of exemplary damages for oppressive violations of personal liberty.