Post by Honorebu on Mar 3, 2016 13:30:32 GMT
The Incorporated Trustees of Media Rights Agenda have urged the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of a Federal High Court in Lagos which on December 5, 2014 dismissed a N2bn suit they filed against the Lagos State Government.
The plaintiffs, who are Igbos, filed the suit to challenge their alleged unlawful arrest, detention and forceful transportation from Lagos to Onitsha, Anambra State against their wish by the Lagos State Government sometime in 2013.
The plaintiffs – Rosemary Nathaniel, Friday Ndukwe, Grace Igbochi, Ugulori Tutua, Chinyere Nicholas and Osondu Mbuto – sued on behalf of themselves and 77 others, seeking damages in the sum of N2bn from the Lagos State Government.
They had, through their lawyer, John Nwokwu, sought a court declaration that their alleged unlawful arrest and forceful transportation to Onitsha violated sections 35, 41(1) and 42 of the Constitution.
The also urged the court to declare that Lagos State Government violated their fundamental rights enshrined under Aticles 6,12, and 28 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap., A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
But in a judgment delivered on December 5, 2014, the trial judge, Justice Musa Kurya, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, after adjudging it to be lacking in merit.
But the displeased plaintiffs have filed an appeal seeking to upturn Justice Kurya’s judgment.
In a five-ground appeal, the appellants’ lawyer, Nwokwu, contended that the trial judge erred in law and came to a perverse decision holding that the transportation of the applicants from Lagos State to Anambra State was “a positive attempt at humanitarian service.”
The lawyer argued that the plaintiffs were not served with the respondents’ counter-affidavit.
“The applicants got to know that the respondents filed a counter-affidavit for the first time in the judgment.”
Among other things, Nwokwu also contended that the plaintiffs were denied fair hearing when the judge decided to rely on “the respondents’ purported counter-affidavit and written address.”
He added, “The lower court erred in law when it failed in its duty to give a dispassionate and impartial consideration to all the materials placed before it but embarked on an irrelevant excursion into his personal believe.”
Justice Kurya had in his judgment aligned with the argument of the then Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, that the state government did not own or operate any detention centre or prison facility at Ikorodu, where the applicants claimed to have been detained.
The court said it believed Ipaye’s submission that the applicants were rescued from different parts of the state while they were begging for alms, living under bridges, by the roadsides, and engaging in other social vices with no discernible means of livelihood or physical address in Lagos State.
Justice Kurya held, “The respondents said in their affidavit that they did not deport the applicants to any place outside the territory of Lagos State at anytime.
“They said that in furtherance of state’s government’s policy to cater for the welfare of citizens irrespective of their origin, the applicants were rescued from different parts of state while they were begging for arms, and engaging in other vices.
“The respondents said that those who could not provide details of their places of residence or business, were taken to a rehabilitation centre at Majidun, and given the opportunity to acquire vocational skills.
“They said that it was three months after, that their home state contacted the respondents, and the applicants, who had successfully completed their programme, indicated their intention to rejoin their families.
“The respondents decided to assist the applicants in getting back to their families.
“It is trite law that where there are conflicts in affidavit evidence, it is normally resolved by oral evidence and applicant counsel did not call for such oral evidence.
“The court was therefore, left with no option but to decide the matter on available evidence.
“I do not find any substance in the case of the applicant; there seems to be truth in the respondent’s averment.
“Consequently, judgment is entered in favour of the respondents against the applicant, with no cost awarded to either parties, this is my judgment,” Justice Kurya had held.
Punch
The plaintiffs, who are Igbos, filed the suit to challenge their alleged unlawful arrest, detention and forceful transportation from Lagos to Onitsha, Anambra State against their wish by the Lagos State Government sometime in 2013.
The plaintiffs – Rosemary Nathaniel, Friday Ndukwe, Grace Igbochi, Ugulori Tutua, Chinyere Nicholas and Osondu Mbuto – sued on behalf of themselves and 77 others, seeking damages in the sum of N2bn from the Lagos State Government.
They had, through their lawyer, John Nwokwu, sought a court declaration that their alleged unlawful arrest and forceful transportation to Onitsha violated sections 35, 41(1) and 42 of the Constitution.
The also urged the court to declare that Lagos State Government violated their fundamental rights enshrined under Aticles 6,12, and 28 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap., A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
But in a judgment delivered on December 5, 2014, the trial judge, Justice Musa Kurya, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, after adjudging it to be lacking in merit.
But the displeased plaintiffs have filed an appeal seeking to upturn Justice Kurya’s judgment.
In a five-ground appeal, the appellants’ lawyer, Nwokwu, contended that the trial judge erred in law and came to a perverse decision holding that the transportation of the applicants from Lagos State to Anambra State was “a positive attempt at humanitarian service.”
The lawyer argued that the plaintiffs were not served with the respondents’ counter-affidavit.
“The applicants got to know that the respondents filed a counter-affidavit for the first time in the judgment.”
Among other things, Nwokwu also contended that the plaintiffs were denied fair hearing when the judge decided to rely on “the respondents’ purported counter-affidavit and written address.”
He added, “The lower court erred in law when it failed in its duty to give a dispassionate and impartial consideration to all the materials placed before it but embarked on an irrelevant excursion into his personal believe.”
Justice Kurya had in his judgment aligned with the argument of the then Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, that the state government did not own or operate any detention centre or prison facility at Ikorodu, where the applicants claimed to have been detained.
The court said it believed Ipaye’s submission that the applicants were rescued from different parts of the state while they were begging for alms, living under bridges, by the roadsides, and engaging in other social vices with no discernible means of livelihood or physical address in Lagos State.
Justice Kurya held, “The respondents said in their affidavit that they did not deport the applicants to any place outside the territory of Lagos State at anytime.
“They said that in furtherance of state’s government’s policy to cater for the welfare of citizens irrespective of their origin, the applicants were rescued from different parts of state while they were begging for arms, and engaging in other vices.
“The respondents said that those who could not provide details of their places of residence or business, were taken to a rehabilitation centre at Majidun, and given the opportunity to acquire vocational skills.
“They said that it was three months after, that their home state contacted the respondents, and the applicants, who had successfully completed their programme, indicated their intention to rejoin their families.
“The respondents decided to assist the applicants in getting back to their families.
“It is trite law that where there are conflicts in affidavit evidence, it is normally resolved by oral evidence and applicant counsel did not call for such oral evidence.
“The court was therefore, left with no option but to decide the matter on available evidence.
“I do not find any substance in the case of the applicant; there seems to be truth in the respondent’s averment.
“Consequently, judgment is entered in favour of the respondents against the applicant, with no cost awarded to either parties, this is my judgment,” Justice Kurya had held.
Punch
