EKENGO V. NIGER DELTA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (2022)

Background

This case concerns an appeal following the High Court of Akwa Ibom State's decision to strike out the appellants' application, which sought to enforce their fundamental human rights. The appellants, residents of the Okut-Itak Community in Ibeno Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom, claimed that the second respondent, while engaged in dredging operations, unlawfully demolished seventy-five houses owned by them without compensation. Consequently, the appellants sought a declaration that the demolition was illegal and requested compensation as well as an injunction against any further property seizures.

Issues

The central issues for determination were:

1. Whether the trial judge correctly struck out the appellants' claims under the relevant procedural rules.
2. Whether the appellants had sufficient grounds under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules to assert their claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal ruled as follows:

1. Preliminary Objection: The preliminary objection by the respondents was upheld as it aimed to terminate the appeal and was not confined to specific grounds.
2. Nature of Fundamental Rights: The court clarified that claims for damages due to torts like demolition are to be addressed through ordinary civil proceedings rather than under the Fundamental Rights framework.
3. Assessment of Claims: The application under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules was rendered incompetent as the appellants’ claims were primarily for compensation regarding property damage, not directly aimed at asserting fundamental rights.

Court Findings

The court observed that:

1. The appellants presented their case as one primarily aimed at seeking damages for the demolition of houses, rather than the enforcement of constitutional rights.
2. The trial court was correct in ruling that the claims presented were not cognizable under the specified Rules as they did not pertain to fundamental rights enforcement directly.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and upheld the decision of the lower court, affirming that the claims could not be sustained under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.

Significance

This case is significant as it delineates the boundary between actions for tort and claims for the enforcement of fundamental rights, reinforcing the need for clarity in legal proceedings regarding allegations of rights violations. It underscores the importance of procedural correctness and the distinct nature of substantive claims under Nigerian law.