site logo

INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF DIGITAL RIGHTS LAWYERS INITIATIVE V (2021)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Ibadan Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU JCA
  • FOLASHADE AYODEJI OJO JCA
  • ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED JCA

Parties:

Appellants:

  • Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative
  • MR. ADEYEMI ATAYERO
  • MR. OLASUNKANMI BELLO

Respondent:

  • NATIONAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Suit number: CA/IB/291/2020

Background

This case examines the decision of the Ogun State High Court which struck out lawsuits filed by the appellants, associated with data privacy issues. The appellants claimed that the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) demanded payment of N15,000 for rectifying the incorrect date of birth on their national identification slip, infringing their constitutional right to privacy.

Issues Presented

The central issues for determination were:

  1. Whether the requirement for the payment of fees for data rectification constitutes a violation of the appellants' right to private and family life under section 37 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in stating that joint applications for fundamental rights enforcement could not be validly filed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that:

  1. The demand for payment did not interfere with the appellants' right to privacy, as it related to an administrative decision of the NIMC.
  2. Joint actions for the enforcement of fundamental rights are permissible under the 2009 Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.

Court Findings

The Court concluded that:

  1. The imposition of fees for rectification purposes falls within the purview of executive and administrative actions by the NIMC, which is outside the jurisdiction of the state High Court as stated in section 251(1)(r) of the Constitution.
  2. For an action to be cognizable under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, it should fundamentally revolve around the infringement of protected rights.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial court's findings were correct and the plaintiffs did not present a cause of action for a fundamental rights violation.

Significance

This ruling reaffirms the concept that challenges against administrative actions by federal agencies fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, thus clarifying the interpretation of constitutional privacy rights in relation to modifications of personal data fees. Additionally, it emphasizes the permissibility of joint applications for the enforcement of fundamental rights, affirming the protective scope provided within the legal framework.