In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 10th day of January, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Haruna Simon Tsammani

Stephen Jonah Adah

Jamilu Yammama Tukur

Mohammed Baba Idris

Justices, Supreme Court

SC. 193/2005

Between

SKY POWER EXPRESS AIRWAYS LTD                        APPELLANT

                                                                    And

1.  AJUMA OLIMA

2. GODWIN UKPOJI                    RESPONDENTS

Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JSC

Facts

The Respondents filed a Fundamental Rights action in Suit No. FHC/J/M108/96 at the Jos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, against the Inspector General of Police and the Appellant. They sought inter alia, a declaration that their continued arrest and detention by agents of the Inspector General of Police at the instance of the Appellant was unconstitutional and in breach of their fundamental rights. 

In a ruling delivered on 15th January, 1997, the trial court granted the reliefs sought by the Respondents and awarded the Respondents exemplary damages against the Nigeria Police Force and the Appellant. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling of the trial court and dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.  Thereafter, the Appellant filed a further appeal at the Supreme Court.

Issues for Determination 

The Supreme Court considered the following issues submitted by the 2nd Respondent, in its determination of the appeal:

i. Whether the act of the lower court in reformulating the issues for determination and the circumstance of not calling parties to address it, is a breach of any established principle of law sufficient to amount to any miscarriage of justice.

ii. Whether the lower court was right when it affirmed the position of the trial court to the effect that the Motion on Notice heard on 19th December, 1996 and the ruling delivered on 15th January, 1997 having regard to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution and Orders 2 and 4 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules were proper.

iii. Whether the court below was right when it affirmed the trial Judge’s award of exemplary damages of N500,000.00 against the Appellant, and further awarded additional cost of N10,000.00 in favour of the Respondent.

Arguments

On the 1st issue, Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Court of Appeal was in grave error when it suo motu reformulated the Appellants’ issues submitted before it, and proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the reformulated issues without inviting the parties to address it on the reformulated issues. Counsel argued that the reformulation of issues changed the issue and substance of the arguments of the Appellant before the lower court, and led to a miscarriage of justice. 

Arguing to the contrary, Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the reformulation of the Appellant’s issues, did not in any way whittle down the complaint of the Appellant before the lower court. Counsel submitted that it is not in all cases when a court formulates an issue in an appeal that it must hear arguments from Counsel, so long as the arguments already submitted by parties are in tandem with the issue formulated by the court. Counsel further argued that the purpose of reformulating an issue, most of the time, is to bring out the real issues in the appeal, and in this particular instance, the issue reformulated by the Court of Appeal essentially captured the issues distilled by the Appellant.

On their part, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent argued that the lower court acted rightly when it reformulated the issues distilled by the Appellant for the purpose of clarity, having observed that the issues distilled by the Appellant were inelegantly couched. Counsel argued that the requirement to invite parties to address the court applies only where the court raises a point suo motu, and not when it reformulates an issue. Counsel cited NWOBIKE v FRN (2022) 6 NWLR (PT. 1826) SC 239.

On the 2nd issue, Counsel for the Appellant argued that since the Respondents’ application for enforcement of their fundamental right was brought pursuant to Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Right Enforcement Procedure Rules 1981, the Appellant was entitled to eight clear days’ notice before the return date for hearing of the Respondents’ application. Counsel submitted that the time from 12th December, 1996 when the Appellant was served to 19th December, 1996, the suit was heard in not up to 8 days and thus, the entire proceeding and the ruling of the court was a nullity.

In response, Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the hearing of the Respondent’s case on 19th December, 1996, and the judgement subsequently delivered by the trial court was valid, in view of the evidence and facts on record which showed that the Appellant was duly served with the requisite processes and hearing notices.

Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the complaint of the Respondents bordered on wrongful detention to which Order 4 Rules 1(1) and 1(2) of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules applies, and the rules only require 5 clear days between the date of service of the summons or motion and the hearing date. Counsel submitted that the record showed that the Respondent’s application came within the purview of Order 4, and that the Appellant was given more than 5 days’ notice between the service of the application, therefore, the hearing and the subsequent ruling were valid. Counsel for the 2nd Respondent argued further that the Appellant’s complaint of the breach of his right to fair hearing on the allegation that the trial court failed to hear his preliminary objection and consider the counter-affidavit he filed is of no moment, since nothing was disclosed in the record to show that the attention of the trial court was drawn to the alleged processes.

On the 3rd issue, Counsel for the Appellant argued that the claim for exemplary damages as couched by the Respondents before the trial court was an incompetent relief that ought not to have been granted. Counsel argued that the relief as couched was vague, failed to indicate properly the persons against whom it was claimed, and there was no evidence to ground the grant of the relief.

Responding, counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the affidavit evidence in the records showed clearly that the award of exemplary damages and cost made by the trial court in favour of the Respondents and affirmed by the lower court was justified, having established that the fundamental rights of the Respondents were violated by the Appellant without any legal justification.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

In resolving issue 1, the Supreme Court held that the law is indeed settled that an Appellate court may, where it deems the issue or issues formulated for the determination of an appeal as incapable of serving the interest of justice or clumsily crafted, reframe or formulate the new issues for the determination of the appeal. The Court also held that the court is also entitled to reframe the issue or issues formulated by the parties in order to give the issues precision and clarity, and in reframing the issue or issues different from issues formulated by the parties, the court is tasked to ensure that the reframed or formulated issues are derived from the grounds of appeal filed by the parties. The Court referred to its decision in STATE v SANI (2018) LPELR-43598 (SC).

The Court found that the issues formulated by the Court of Appeal captured the real issues raised by the Appellant in his brief of argument, and were neatly tied to the grounds of appeal for the purpose of clarity, and they were not fresh points raised suo motu, to necessitate the invitation of parties to address it on the same. The Apex Court distinguished that an issue is said to be raised suo motu when such an issue is not in the contemplation of the parties and is not before the court, and this is the circumstance that would require the court to invite parties to address it before making its decision thereon. The Court held that it was clear from the record of appeal that in reframing the issues for determination, the Court of Appeal did not raise any fresh point that would warrant inviting the parties to address it on the fresh point, but, merely reformulated the issues distilled by the Appellant which it viewed as clumsily couched, in order to give clarity on the real issues before it.

Deciding the 2nd issue, the Apex Court held that where an Applicant as in the instant case complains of unlawful arrest and detention in breach of his fundamental rights and applies for enforcement of those rights, the applicable rule under which the trial court will act in the issuance of the summons and the service of the hearing notice, is Order 4 Rule 1(2) of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules 1981 extant at the material time. The Court held that by the said Rule 1(2), there must be at least five clear days between the service of the originating application for enforcement of the right of the Applicant who has complained of wrongful or unlawful detention, and the date of hearing of the application. The Supreme Court held that in the instant case, the record showed that the application was served on the Appellant on 12/12/96 and the matter was heard on 19/12/96, which was at least 6 clear days from 12/12/96; hence, the fixture of the case for hearing on 19/12/96 was competent, as it was done in line with the relevant rule and within the context of the complaint of unlawful arrest and detention lodged before the trial court. 

On the Appellant’s complaint that the lower court erred in affirming the decision of the trial court which failed to take cognisance of his preliminary objection and counter-affidavit filed in opposition to the application, the Apex Court held that, there was nothing on record to show that the Appellant and the other Respondents at the trial court filed any processes up till the date the matter was heard. The Court held further that the record also showed that the Appellant’s Counsel who was present in court on the date the ruling was delivered, failed to make any mention of or draw the attention of the court to the alleged processes which the Appellant claimed to have filed. 

The Court held that the test of fair hearing under Section 36(1) of Chapter IV of the Constitution is whether the person complaining of the breach was denied access to court to ventilate his grievances, or whether the court had denied him a fair opportunity of presenting his case. The Court found that evidence abounded in the record that the Appellant was afforded ample opportunity to present his case, but failed to do so; he cannot and should not therefore, be heard to be complaining that his right to fair hearing was breached.

On the 3rd issue, the Court held that the affidavit evidence of the Respondents at the trial court was the basis upon which the Respondents’ claim for exemplary damages was granted, and by the evidence which was not contradicted, it was established that the Appellant and others were culpable in the arrest of the Respondents from their village in Benue and their detention at the Nigeria Police Zonal Headquarters, Onikan, Lagos. The Court held that the trial court rightly relied on the unchallenged affidavit evidence before it to award exemplary damages against the Appellant, and the Court of Appeal, in turn, rightly affirmed the decision of the trial court.  

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

Ibrahin Bawa with Ifechelobi Chika and Ogunmola Adebayo for the Appellant.

Martin Atojoko for 1st Respondent.

Olawale Fapohunda for the 2nd Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)

The post Power of  Court to Reframe Issues Formulated by Parties appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​