Cost Of N5m Awarded Against Police For Unwarranted And Unconstitutional Arrest Of Daniel Elombah And Izuchukwu Elombah

Cost Of N5m Awarded Against Police For Unwarranted And Unconstitutional Arrest Of Daniel Elombah And Izuchukwu Elombah

This is the Summary of the  judgment of the Court delivered by Hon Justice Jude Okeke of High Court of FCT:-

  1. relief for the violations of fundamental human rights of the applicant fails for want of territorial jurisdiction I.e relief 5
  2. Order of injunction restraining respondents from further arresting and restraining the movement of the applicants.
  3. 5m awarded for the arbitrarily arrest and detention of the applicants.
  4. Release of the properties in the custody of the respondents.

5 . Prayer for public apology fairs for it will amount to double punishment for the respondents haven’t granted monetary compensation.

  1. Cost of 50k.

The Legal hurdle we crossed to enable the Court deliver judgment.

The matter was slated for judgment on the 23rd day of April, 2018. Counsel for the respondents brought an application by way of motion on notice praying for an Order extending time for them to file their counter-affidavit the allowed haven expired. Their grounds for the application were that, due to administrative challenges the substantive counsel could not access the file on time.

Counsel for the Applicant Ifeanyi M. Nrialike in opposition filed a 9 paragraphs counter-affidavit and a written address.

Ephraim K. Shiho Esq who argued the application today prayed to court to dismiss and strike out the Respondents’ application for lacking in merit and being grossly incompetent.

The grounds were as follows

  1. The substantive suit the respondents are seeking g extension of time to file their counter-affidavit is not before the court as the court cannot act on an application that is not properly before it.

Accordingly the Court held that the application is grossly incompetent as stated by Ephraim K . Shiho.

  1. On the other grounds counsel for the Applicant posited that the application of the respondent’s amounts to arresting the judgment of the Court, as the respondents waited until date was fixed for the delivery of the judgment before they brought this application in bad faith to arrest the delivery of the judgment of this honourable court. On this ground the court held that their application amounted to arresting the judgment of the court.
  2. on the ground of whether the respondents will be denied fair hearing if their application is refused, the court held mutatis mutandis our submission that a party cannot sleep on his right at the same time stay away from trial having been served with the substantive suit and hearing notice.

The Court consequently dismissed the application to arrest the judgment and proceeded to deliver the Judgment.

Leave a Reply

  • (not be published)