IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT BENIN CITY
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON.JUSTICE P.A.AKHIHIERO,
ON MONDAY THE
10TH DAY OF JULY, 2023.

SUIT NO. B/204M/2022

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY NOBLE VENTURES LIMITED FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE

RULE, 2009 MADE BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA PURSUANT TO
SECTION 46 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC AS
AMENDED.

BETWEEN:

NOBLE VENTURES LIMITED ------------------------------------------ APPLICANT

AND

1. CHIEF FRIDAY EGHAGHE

2. FRED EGHAGHE
3. NOSA EGHAGHE
4. HENRY EGHAGHE
5. SHINO EGHAGHE
6. THE NIGERIA POLICE FORCE
7. THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION
8. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NIGERIA POLICE FORCE.
9. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, FORCE CID,
AREA 10, ABUJA.
10. THE O/C GENERAL ADMINISTARTION, FORCE CID,
AREA 10, ABUJA
11. MR. JAMES OZ
INVESTIGATIVE POLICE OFFICER, RESPONDENTS
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION,
FORCE CID, AREA 10, ABUJA.
12. MR. ENYEJO AUGUSTINE
INVESTIGATIVE POLICE OFFICER,

1
 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION,
FORCE CID, AREA 10, ABUJA.
13. MR. GESHUA (Other name unknown)
TEAM LEADER, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION,
FORCE CID, AREA 10, ABUJA.

JUDGMENT
This judgment is in respect of an application brought pursuant to section
34(1) & 43 of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended,
Order 2 Rules 2, 3, 4, & 5; and Order 11 Rule 4 of the Fundamental Rights
(Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court.
In this application, the Applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that the Applicant is entitled to the right to dignity
of it’s cooperate image and not to be subjected to any form of inhuman or
degrading treatment, it’s cooperate liberty and freedom to function as
provided for by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999,
as amended (sic);
2. A DECLARATION that the continuous forceful interference with the
Applicant’s possession of the property located at Ward 34/F Egba,
Idogbo Area, Benin City by the 7th – 13th Respondents in collusion with
the 1st to 5th Respondents, is without probable or just cause, illegal,
unlawful and in violation of the Applicant’s property rights as enshrined
in Section 43 and 34(1), of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (1999) as amended and therefore actionable;
3. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction, restraining the Respondents
whether by themselves, agents, servants, privies, assigns, successors-in-
office or whosoever connected with them in any manner whatsoever and
howsoever from further harassing, intimidating, interfering with the
property right of the Applicant and/or arresting, inviting for
questioning or interrogating of the Applicant’s staff or doing
anything overtly or covertly inconsistent with the Applicant’s
Fundamental Rights as encapsulated in the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended on account of false allegations by
the 1st - 5th Respondents against the Applicant, save only if the Applicant
commits any offence; and

2
 4. AN AWARD of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira), only
as general and exemplary damages jointly and severally against the
Respondents for the pains, discomfort and inconveniences suffered by
the Applicant as a result of the incessant, harassment, intimidation,
interference and deprivation by the 6th – 13th Respondents on the
instructions and instigation of the 1st - 5th Respondents.
In support of the application, the Applicant filed a 29 paragraphs affidavit
and a written address of their counsel.
In the Applicant’s affidavit in support of this application, the Applicant
narrated the events that culminated in the filing of the application.
The salient facts in support of this application can be gleaned from the
affidavit of one Rosemary Atoe who is a Legal Practitioner and the Human
Resource Personnel of the Applicant.
According to the deponent, the Applicant is a Limited Liability Company
engaged in engineering and construction work. She alleged that sometime in
2009, the Applicant purchased a property at Ward 34/F, Egba Village, Idogbo
Area, Benin City from a financial institution known as Circular Community
Bank Limited (now defunct).
The said Community Bank had earlier acquired the property vide a
judgment of the High Court of Justice Edo State in Suit No: B/638/99 delivered
on the 9/6/99. From the facts, one Mr. Eghaghe, the late father of the 1st – 5th
Defendants used the said property as collateral for a loan which he obtained
from the defunct bank.
She alleged that subsequently, after the Applicant was put in possession
of the property, Mr. Eghaghe filed an Appeal at the Court of Appeal which was
struck out on the 7th Day of July, 2004.
After the purchase of the property, the late Mr. Eghaghe and his children
(the 1st – 5th Defendants) continued to instigate and use the 7th – 13th
Respondents to interfere with the Applicant’s peaceable possession of the
property.
That as a result of the interference, the Applicant wrote several petitions
to the police, complaining about the violation of its property rights by the 1st –
6th Respondents.
That sometime in 2015, the 1st – 6th Respondents and their late father
invaded the site with some hired armed thugs, inflicted serious bodily injury on
the Applicant’s workers and set ablaze a cart 980B pale loader which the
Applicant hired to do some work on the site.

3
 Sequel to the alleged violation of the Applicant’s rights by the 1st – 6th
Respondents, the Applicant wrote a petition to the 8th Respondent complaining
of the lawlessness and impunity of the 1st – 6th and the 11th, 12th and 13th
Respondents.
That owing to the alleged incessant interference with the property rights
of the Applicant by the Respondents, the Applicant filed a suit against the
Respondents in Suit No: B/4/2016 and the Court made an order restraining the
Respondents.
The Applicant maintains that the continuous interference of the
Respondents’ with the Applicant’s right of possession is a violation of its
property rights and dignity to its corporate image. That in continuation of the
Respondent’s violation of the Applicant’s property right, some workmen hired
from Macfranklyn Engineering Services Limited by the Applicant to carry out
construction work at the Applicant’s property under reference were arrested and
detained at the Edo State Police Command, Benin City on the 19th day of
October, 2022.
That when the staff of the Applicant and a lawyer got to the Edo State
Police Command, the 11th and 12th Respondents gave them some stringent
conditions to be met before they would grant bail to the detained persons.
That when they could not meet the stringent conditions for bail demanded
by the 11th and 12th Respondents on the alleged instructions of the 13th
Respondent and the instigation of the 1st to 5th Respondents, the said workmen
were detained in a police cell at the Edo State Police Command and
subsequently taken to Abuja on the 20th of October, 2022 for further detention.
The Applicant maintain that if the Respondents are not restrained, the 1st -
5th Respondents would have succeeded in using the 6th – 13th Respondents as
tools to have jurisdiction over a matter that has a civil correlation, assuming
there was any case at all.
Furthermore, that if the Respondents are not restrained, the 1st – 5th
Respondents will succeed in using a concocted and manufactured criminal
investigation to infringe on the Applicant’s property right and dignity to its
corporate image.
The 1st to the 5th Respondents’ version of the events appear slightly
different in certain regards. From the facts disclosed in their counter-affidavit,
which the 1st Respondent deposed to, they denied most of the facts contained in
the Applicant’s supporting affidavit.

4
 According to them, their late father, Chief S.I. Eghaghe owned two
landed properties at Ward 34/F, Egba Village, Idogbo, Benin City covered by
certificate of occupancy No. EDSR12392 which is the larger land and
EDSR12393 which is the smaller land respectively.
They alleged that their late father used the smaller land as collateral to
secure a loan from Circular Community Bank Ltd. in which one Dele Edokpayi,
Esq. is the founder, Chairman and Managing Director.
They said that in Suit No. B/638/99, the said Circular Community Bank
Ltd. sued their late father as the 1st Defendant amongst other claims for the
smaller land which was used as collateral for the loan. According to them, in the
Court’s Judgment, it was held that their late father was the owner of the
aforesaid had two parcels of land.
Furthermore, they alleged that sometime in 2014/2015, the Applicant and
Dele Edokpayi Esq., purportedly acting in execution of the judgment in Suit No:
B/638/99 forcibly entered the larger land measuring 300 feet by 500 feet and
destroyed their father’s water factory, equipment, buildings and other items on
the land and attempted to excise 300 feet by 200 feet from the 300 feet by 500
feet instead of going to the smaller land measuring 300 feet by 200 feet and
their father chased them away.
They said that their father reported the alleged forcible entry, criminal
trespass, malicious damage and conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace to
the police and filed Suit No: B/530/2014 against the Applicant and Dele
Edokpayi Esq. in order to determine the ownership of the two parcels of land.
They said that the suit is pending before High Court 3, Benin City and they
attached a copy of the Amended Statement of Claim as Exhibit D to their
Counter-Affidavit.
They said that the Applicant and Dele Edokpayi, Esq. also reported a case
of assault and setting ablaze a Cart 980B bulldozer to the police. That the police
investigated the case, made their findings and recommended the prosecution of
Dele Edokpayi Esq. but in order to avoid prosecution, the said Dele Edokpayi
allegedly filed Suit No: B/4/2016 and obtained an order of injunction restraining
the police from arresting and prosecuting him in the matter. They attached a
copy of the Police Report and the originating process in Suit No: B/4/2016 as
Exhibits E and F respectively.
According to them, while these cases were pending in court, the
Applicant, Dele Edokpayi Esq. and their workers on 19/10/2022 again went
with a Bulldozer caterpillar to the larger parcel land measuring 300 feet by 500

5
feet and started to destroy the properties on the land such as cassava crops,
vegetables, plantain etc. They reported to the police and they apprehended the
workers while Dele Edokpayi Esq. allegedly failed to honour the police
invitation.
They alleged that the 1st – 5th Respondents only reported a case of
forcible entry, malicious damage and conduct likely to cause a breach of the
peace to the 11th – 12th Respondents.
That while their father was alive and the suits were pending in court, the
Applicant and Dele Edokpayi Esq. stayed away from the land but upon the
demise of their father, he allegedly returned to the land on 19/10/2022 with
bulldozer caterpillar and started to destroy their properties on the land.
The 1st to 5th Respondents maintain that the matter is purely a land matter
in which the Applicant and Dele Edokpayi Esq. are trying to acquire their land
by refusing to await the determination of Suits No: B/530/2014 and Suit No:
B/4/2016. They maintain that this matter has nothing to do with the enforcement
of fundamental human rights.
Upon receipt of the 1st to the 5th Respondents’ Counter-Affidavit, the
Applicant filed a Reply to the Counter-Affidavit and a Reply on Points of Law.
In its Reply to the Counter-Affidavit, the Applicant deposed to some
further facts to explain the various transactions involving the disputed properties
with particular reference to the suits in the courts.
At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the 6th to the 13th Respondents
who are officers and agents of the Nigerian Police Force did not file any process
in respect of this application.
The learned counsel for the Applicant and the 1st to 5th Respondents filed
their written addresses in support of their clients.
In his written address in support of this application, the learned counsel
for the Applicant, Pius Oiwoh Esq. formulated two issues for determination as
follows:
(i) Whether the Applicant has some constitutional rights which the Court
can protect; and
(ii) Whether Applicant’s constitutional rights have been and is still being
violated by the 6th – 13th Respondents particularly where the 6th – 13th
Respondent acted outside their constitutional defined power through
the instigation of the 1st -5th Respondents.
Thereafter, the learned counsel argued the two issues seriatim.

6
ISSUE ONE:
Whether the Applicant has some constitutional rights which the Court can
protect?
Arguing this issue, learned counsel submitted that the Applicants by the
provisions of Section 43 and 34(1) of the 1999 Constitution has a constitutional
right that needs to be protected by this Honourable Court, if it is glaring that
such rights has been violated or are about to be violated.
He posited in paragraphs 5 to 21, the Applicant stated the facts which
constitutes the acts of harassment, intimidation and continuing interference with
the Applicant’s right of possession of property which the Applicant acquired for
valuable consideration without justification. He maintained that the Applicant
was subjected to such degree of intimidation and harassment by the 6th – 13th
Respondents under the influence of the 1st - 5th Respondents.
Counsel submitted that if there is any criminal allegation properly
established against the Applicant, the Applicant will not be calling on this
Honourable Court to intervene since the 6th - 13th Respondents have the
constitutional powers to deal with issues of crime.
He maintained that the Applicant is a law abiding corporate entity
engaged in engineering and construction work and he urged the Court to
carefully look into the conduct of the Respondents and the subject matter of this
application in order to protect the constitutional rights of the Applicant.
Counsel submitted that the 6th – 13th Respondents ought to have made a
proper preliminary investigation before subjecting the Applicant to inhuman
treatment in violation of its constitutional rights guaranteed by the law. He
referred to the following decisions on the protection of fundamental rights:
MBADIKE & ORS V. LAGOS INT’L TRADE FAIR COMPLEX
MANAGEMENT BOARD & ORS (2017) LPELR – 41968 (CA) AT PP. 30-
31, PARAS. A-E; GRACE JACK V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,
MAKURDI (2004) 5 NWLR (PT. 865) 208; GEORGE ADUMU V. THE
CONTROLLER OF PRISONS FEDERAL PRISONS, ABA & ORS (2013)
LPELR – 22069 CA; OLUTOLA V. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2004) 18
NWLR (PT. 905) 416; ZAKARI V. IGP (2000) 8 NWLR (PT. 670) 666.
He submitted that the continuous interference with the Applicant’s right
to property and the continuing arrest and detention of the Applicant’s staff by
the 6th – 13th Respondents is a breach of the Applicant’s fundamental right to its
corporate image and dignity as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal

7
Republic of Nigeria and he cited the case of NAWA V. A.G. CROSS RIVER
STATE (2008) A.F.W.L.R part 401 ratio 16 page 807 particularly at page 818.

ISSUE TWO
Whether the Applicant’s Constitutional rights were violated by the
Respondents particularly where the 6th – 13th Respondents acted outside their
constitutional defined power through the instigation of the 1st -5th
Respondents.

Learned counsel submitted that where there is clear evidence as in the

present case that the constitutional right of the Applicant has been breached or
is about to be breached, the Applicant is entitled to compensation and a public
apology.
He posited that the Applicant has stated its ordeal in the hands of 6th –
th
13 Respondents having regard to the continuous interference with the property
rights of the Applicant and more particularly the arrest and continuing detention
of the Applicant’s hired workmen which adversely affected the Applicant’s
corporate image and dignity and he urged the Court to declare the conduct of
the 6th – 13th Respondent as unlawful.
Counsel maintained that every person in Nigeria has the right to go about
his/her normal business unmolested or unhampered by anyone whether a
Government functionary or a private individual. He said that the Court will
frown at any manifestation of arbitrary power by any person or authority over
the life or property of another person.
He posited that people cannot take the laws into their hands by attempting
to enforce what they consider to be their right or entitlement particularly where
there is a judgment/order of Court evidencing the Applicant’s right over the
property, subject of this application. He urged the Court to condemn the conduct
and activities of the Respondents in violation of the Applicant’s right
guaranteed by the law and referred to Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” attached
to the affidavit in support of this application
He submitted that it is settled law that where persons such as the 1st - 5th
Respondents makes a report to the police which is found to be false, they should
be made liable and he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of OKAFOR v. ABUMOFUANI (2016) LPELR – 40299 (SC).
He submitted that the powers of the 6th – 13th Respondents has been
improperly used because they allowed themselves to be used in a matter where

8
the 1st -5th Respondents cannot categorically establish or possess any material
evidence for the allegation levied against the Applicant.
Counsel submitted that although the police have a duty to prevent crime,
such powers should not be abused and he relied on the case of NZEGBUNA &
ANOR V. OKOYE & ANOR (2018) LPELR – 43943 (CA) P. 21, paras. C-F.
He posited that in the circumstances of this case, the Applicant is entitled
to substantial damages for the injury to the dignity of its corporate image,
discomfort and inconveniences. He submitted that damages flow naturally from
injuries suffered by an Applicant in a Fundamental Human Rights Application
and he urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Applicant against the
Respondents.
In his written address in opposition to this application, the learned
counsel for the 1st to 5th Respondents, Nosakhare Obaizamomwan Esq.
formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:
“Whether the Applicant’s application is competent to enable this Honourable
court exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine same?”
Arguing this sole issue, learned counsel submitted that this application is
incompetent and this Honourable court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear
same.
Firstly, he submitted that the Applicant lack the locus standi to bring this
application. He submitted that locus standi is the legal right of a party to an
action to be heard in litigation before a court of law or tribunal. That the issue
of locus standi is a condition precedent to the determination of a case on merit
and where a party lacks the locus standi to bring a suit, the suit becomes
incompetent and the court should dismiss same. In support, he relied on the
following cases:

(a) Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012)11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137 at 175 – 176
paras E – H;
(b) Owodunmi v. Registered Trustees of C.C.C. (2000)10 NWLR (Pt.
675) 315;
(c) P.M. Ltd. v. The “M.V. Dancing Sister” (2012)4 NWLR (Pt.
1289)169 at 189 paras C – F.

Furthermore, he submitted that the test for determination of the locus

standi are that the action must be justiciable and there must be a dispute
between the parties. In support, he cited the cases of Ajayi v. Adebiyi

9
(supra)176 paras A – C; and Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007)4 NWLR (Pt. 1025)
423.
Learned counsel posited that in this application, the Applicant stated that
they acquired the property in 2009 and exhibited the receipts of purchase as
Exhibit A. He said that Exhibit A is a Deed of Assignment made on 25th May,
2010 by which the Applicant assigned/sold the property situate in Ward 34/F,
Idogbo Area, Benin City covered by certificate of occupancy No: EDSR12393,
which is the property in issue in this case, to one Sheri Lawal.
He said that in their affidavit, the Applicant went further to state that in
2015 the Applicant hired a Cart 980 Pale Loader and other workmen to clear the
property and the 1st – 5th Respondents inflicted serious bodily injury on them
and that on 19/10/2022 some workers hired by Applicant to work on the
property were arrested and detained by the 6th – 13th Respondents upon report
by the 1st – 5th Respondents.
Counsel submitted that a plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute an
action where he has no axe to grind with the defendant in respect of the subject
matter of the action and he cited the case of Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra) at 182
paras C – D.
He alleged that in the instant case, by the Applicant’s affidavit, the
Applicant sold the land to Sheri Lawal on 25th May, 2010 whereas the incident
referred to by the Applicant occurred in 2015 and 2022. He submitted that in
2010 Sheri Lawal became the owner of the land now in dispute in this case so
the Applicant lacks the locus standi to bring this application since he has no axe
to grind with the 1st – 5th Respondents in respect of the land in 2015 and 2022.
He maintained that Sheri Lawal should be the person to bring this application,
where necessary, and not the Applicant who no longer has any interest
whatsoever in the property having sold same to Sheri Lawal in 2010.
Secondly, counsel submitted that the Applicant being a limited liability
company is an artificial person. That an artificial person is a juristic personality
known to law and accorded due rights under our laws but can only act through
its agents or servants who are human beings. And as such the Applicant cannot
suffer injury as a human person.
He submitted that an artificial person cannot maintain an action for
violation of fundamental rights. And as such, the Applicant being an artificial
person, the Applicant is incapable of being subjected to inhuman or degrading
treatment as claimed by Applicant. He referred to the case of F.B.N. Ltd. Plc v.

10
A.G Fed. (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 121 at 173 paras F – G; 175 para D, the
Supreme Court held thus:
“An artificial person cannot maintain an action for violation of its
fundamental rights. Thus, in the instant case, the 1st Appellant being an
artificial person was incapable of being arrested and detained. The 2nd – 5th
appellants, being natural persons, were the ones who could institute an action
for the enforcement of their fundamental human rights. The 1st appellant not
being a person capable of being arrested and detained was not entitled to
damages in this case although it may have its remedy elsewhere.”
Counsel contended that in the instant case, the Applicant being an
artificial person is incapable of being subjected to any form of inhuman or
degrading treatment, or injury to its corporate liberty and freedom to function as
claimed and as such the Applicant cannot maintain an action for violation of its
Fundamental human rights.
Thirdly, he submitted that for a matter to be instituted under the
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules to enforce the
constitutional guaranteed rights under Chapter IV of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) the enforcement of such
rights must be the main/substantive claim before the court not an ancilliary
claim. In support, he cited the following decisions on the point: Amale v.
Sokoto Local Govt. (2012)5 NWLR (Pt.1292) 181; and Kalu v. State (1998)13
NWLR (Pt. 583)531.
Counsel submitted that in this case, it is clear that the main plank of the
claim of the Applicant does not lie in enforcement of fundamental rights. That
the main claim is for possession of the property situate at Ward 34/F, Idogbo
Area, Benin City covered by certificate of occupancy No: EDSR12392 and not
EDSR12393 adjudged for Applicant in Suit No: B/638/99 and for a restoration
of Applicant right to the property which property is in dispute between
Applicant and 1st – 5th Respondents. He submitted that the appropriate
procedure is for the Applicant to ventilate his grievance by a writ of summons
or any other appropriate procedure. That this application under the Fundamental
Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules is incompetent and this court lacks the
jurisdiction to entertain it and he cited the following cases:
(1) Tukur v. Govt; Taraba State (1997)6 NWLR (Pt. 510)549;
(2) Jack v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi (2004)5 NWLR (Pt. 865)
208;
(3) Emeka v. Okoroafor (2017)11 NWLR (Pt. 1577)411.

11
He submitted that the application for enforcement of the Applicants
fundamental rights to dignity of the human person and to immovable property is
a subtle way to settle the Applicant’s land dispute with the 1st – 5th Respondents.
Fourthly, counsel submitted that from the facts, the 1st – 5th Respondents
had a reason to report a matter against the Applicant to the 6th – 13th
Respondents as the Applicants left the land adjudged for them and forcibly
entered and trespassed upon the other land of the 1st – 5th Respondents and
destroyed the properties of the 1st – 5th Respondents on the land hence the report
to the 6th – 13th Respondents who are law enforcement officials.
In conclusion he urged the Court to dismiss this application with
substantial costs in favour of the 1st – 5th Respondents.
In his Reply on Points of Law, the learned counsel for the Applicant
submitted that contrary to submissions of the counsel for the 1st to 5th
Respondents, the Applicant has the locus standi to bring this application
because the Applicant has substantial interest in the property located at Ward
34/F, Idogbo Area Benin City.
Furthermore, on the point raised by the Respondent’s counsel that an
artificial person cannot maintain an action for the enforcement of fundamental
rights, learned counsel cited the case of FIRST BANK & ORS V. A-G
FEDERATION & ORS (2018) LPELR-46084(SC) (PP. 81 PARAS. A) and
submitted that an artificial person can enforce its fundamental rights.
After the learned counsel for both parties had addressed the Court, the
learned counsel for the Applicant wrote to this Court to forward two additional
authorities on the right of an artificial body to enforce its fundamental right. He
forwarded photocopy of the cases of NAANANG DAWAN VS. EFCC & ORS
(2019) LPELR- 48386 (CA) and MR. CHARLES OKECHUKWU & ANOR
VS. EFCC & ORS (2014) LPELR-24079.
I have carefully examined all the processes filed in this application
together with the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. The issues
formulated by both counsel are quite germane to the just determination of this
application.
In the event I have condensed the issues into a sole issue for determination as
follows:
Whether the Applicant is entitled to the Reliefs claimed in this
Application for the alleged breach of its fundamental rights?
I will proceed to resolve the sole issue for determination.

12
 Essentially, the fulcrum of this application is the Applicants complaint
that the continuous forceful interference with the Applicant’s possession of the
property located at Ward 34/F Egba, Idogbo Area, Benin City by the 7th – 13th
Respondents in collusion with the 1st to 5th Respondents, is in violation of the
Applicant’s right to property as enshrined in Section 43 and the right to the
dignity of the human person as enshrined in Section 34(1), of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended.
The critical question to determine at this stage is whether the
Respondents were in breach of the Applicant’s fundamental human rights as
enshrined in sections 34(1) and 43 of the Constitution as alleged by the
Applicant.
The question of infringement of fundamental rights is largely a question
of fact. So it is the facts of the matter as disclosed in the processes filed that are
examined, analysed and evaluated, to see if the fundamental rights of the
Applicant were actually violated or about to be violated contrary to the
provisions of the Constitution.
The law remains rudimentary that he who asserts must prove, so the
Applicant has the onus of proving by credible affidavit evidence that its
fundamental rights were breached. See the cases of ONAH vs. OKENWA
(2010) 7 NWLR (PT 1194) 512 at 535-536; and ONWUAMADIKE vs. IGP
(2018) LPELR (46039) 1 at 20-22.
Furthermore, where the Applicant has discharged his primary duty of
adducing cogent and sufficient materials to establish the alleged infringement,
the burden would shift unto the Respondents to justify the alleged infringement.
See the following decisions on the point: Fajemirokun V. CIJ (Nig.) Ltd.
(2002) 10 NWLR (Pt. 774) 95 @ 110; Ekwenugo V. FRN (Supra) @p. 185;
Skypower Airways Limited V. Olima (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 957) 224 @ p.
255;and COP Ondo State V. Obolo (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 120) 130 @ pp. 137-
138.
Before, I consider the evidence adduced by the Applicant in respect of
this application; I want to consider a salient objection raised the learned counsel
for the 1st to the 5th Respondents that the Applicant lacks the locus standi to
institute this action.
In the case of Pacers Multi Dynamics Ltd v. M.V. Dancing Sister (2012)
1 SC (Pt. 1) p.75 the apex Court explained locus standi: "A person has locus
standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court
that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being
infringed. There are two tests for determining if a person has locus standi.
They are: 1. The action must be justiciable, and 2. There must be a dispute
between the parties. In applying the test a liberal attitude must be adopted.”
13
Also in the case of B.B APUGO & SONS LTD V. OHMB (2016) LPELR-
40598(SC)(PP. 85-86 PARAS. B) the Court exposited thus: “To have locus
standi, the plaintiffs statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest,
and show how such interest arose in the subject matter of the action."
In this application, the learned counsel’s objection on locus standi are
based on four grounds.
Firstly, is the allegation that the Applicant sold the land to one Sheri
Lawal on the 25th of May, 2010 whereas the alleged violation referred to by the
Applicant occurred in 2015 and 2022 after the Applicant had sold the land.
From the exchange of affidavits, it is not quite certain if the title to the disputed
land was actually transferred to the said Sheri Lawal. It is evident that the
Applicant is still asserting his right to the land in dispute in some other suits in
other courts and in the present application. I do not think I can make any finding
on the Applicant’s title in this present application. Thus, the objection on locus
standi premised on this ground cannot be upheld.
Secondly, counsel submitted that the Applicant being a limited liability
company is an artificial person. That an artificial person cannot enforce
fundamental human rights.
My quick response to this objection is that it is settled law that in certain
instances companies/artificial persons can enforce certain fundamental rights.
See the case of Onyekwuluje v. Benue State Govt (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.928) 614
@ 646. For instance, assuming a limited liability company is involved in a case
where it was denied fair hearing, it has the right to sue for breach of its
fundamental Rights to fair hearing. See OKECHUKWU & ANOR V. EFCC &
ORS (2014) LPELR-24079(CA)(PP. 21 PARAS. B).
See also the cases of NAANANG DAWAN VS. EFCC & ORS (2019) LPELR-
48386 (CA) and MR. CHARLES OKECHUKWU & ANOR VS. EFCC & ORS
(2014) LPELR-24079 which were aptly cited by the learned counsel for the
Applicant.
Thus, the objection of locus standi cannot also be upheld on this ground.
Thirdly, learned counsel objected on the ground that in the present
application, the Applicant’s main relief is in the enforcement of fundamental
rights but for possession of the property situate at Ward 34/F, Idogbo Area,
Benin City and for a restoration of the Applicant’s right to the property which
property is in dispute between Applicant and 1st – 5th Respondents.
Strictly speaking, this objection is not on locus standi but on the
competence of the entire application. It is trite that when an application is
brought under the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, a
condition precedent to the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction is that the
enforcement of fundamental right or the securing of the enforcement thereof
should, be the main claim and not an ancillary claim. Enforcement of
fundamental right or securing the enforcement thereof should form the
applicant's claim as presented be the principal claim or fundamental claim and

14
where the main or principal claim is not the enforcement or securing the
enforcement of a fundamental right the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be
properly exercised and will be incompetent. See Tukur vs. Government of
Taraba State (1997) 6 NWLR (PT 510) 549; B.R.T.C. vs. Egbuonu (1991) 2
NWLR (PT.171) 81." Per ABBA AJI ,J.C.A in eronini & ors v. eronini & ors
(2013) LPELR-20651(CA) (Pp. 27 paras. A).
Upon a careful consideration of the Applicant’s Claims, it is apparent that
the first two reliefs are for declaratory reliefs for the alleged infringement of the
Applicant’s rights to human dignity and the right to immovable property. The
other two reliefs are ancillary or consequential reliefs for perpetual injunction
and damages. Thus, I am of the view that the main reliefs are for the
enforcement of the Applicant’s alleged fundamental rights as enshrined in the
Constitution. Thus this objection is also incompetent.
The fourth ground of the alleged objection on locus standi is that from the
facts, the 1st – 5th Respondents had a reason to report a matter against the
Applicant to the 6th – 13th Respondents because the Applicants left the land
adjudged for them and forcibly entered and trespassed upon the other land of
the 1st – 5th Respondents and destroyed the properties of the 1st – 5th
Respondents on the land.
Clearly, this is not an issue of locus standi but an attempt by the 1st to the
5th Respondents to justify their action of making a report to the Respondents
who are law enforce agents for the alleged offences committed by some people
who forcibly entered their land and destroyed their properties on the land.
The crucial question to determine at this stage is whether the 1st to the 5th
Respondents were justified in making the report against the aforesaid
individuals and whether the 6th to the 13th Respondents were justified in the
steps they took to investigate the report of the alleged offences.
In respect of the 1st to the 5th Respondent, it is evident that they actually
made a report to the police against the Applicant and certain persons who
appear to be acting on behalf of the Applicant. In paragraphs 11 to 16 of their
Counter-Affidavit, the 1st to 5th Defendants explained the reasons for making the
report. In the aforesaid paragraphs, they chronicled the events culminating in
the police report as follows:
“11. That our father reported the forcible entry, criminal trespass by the
Applicant and Dele Edokpayi, Esq. on the land covered by certificate of
occupancy No: EDSR12392 malicious damage and conduct likely to cause a
breach of the peace to the police and filed Suit No: B/530/2014 against Noble
Venture Ltd. and Dele Edokpayi, Esq. as Defendants to determine which of
the two (2) lands measuring 300 feet by 200 feet and having an area of
5789.713 square metres covered by certificate of occupancy No: ESR12393
and measuring 300 feet by 500 feet containing an area of 1.422 Hectres
covered by certificate of occupancy No: EDSR12392 was adjudged to them by
the Judgment and damages and the suit is pending before High Court 3,

15
Benin City. Attached herewith is a copy of the Amended statement of claim
marked as Exhibit D.
12. That the Applicant and Dele Edokpayi, Esq. also reported a case of
assault and setting ablaze a Cart 980B bulldozer to the police.
13. That the police investigated the case and made their findings and
recommended the prosecution of Dele Edokpayi, Esq. but Dele Edokpayi, Esq.
in order to escape/avoid prosecution, filed Suit No: B/4/2016 and obtained an
order of injunction restraining the police from arresting and prosecuting him
in the matter. A copy of the Police Report and the originating process in Suit
No: B/4/2016 is attached herewith and marked as Exhibits E and F
respectively.
14. That while these cases were pending in court, the Applicants, Dele
Edokpayi, Esq. and their workers on 19/10/2022 again went with Bulldozer
caterpillar to the larger land measuring 300 feet by 500 feet covered by
certificate of occupancy No: EDSR12392 and began to destroy the properties
on the land which include crops like cassava, vegetables, plantain etc. and we
reported the case to the police.
15. That when the 11th – 12th Respondents got to the land on 19/10/2022,
the saw the Applicant workers on the land with bulldozer caterpillar
destroying our properties on the land and the police apprehended the workers
and invited the Applicant and Dele Edokpayi, Esq. but they refused and/or
failed to answer to the police.
16. That the 1st – 5th Respondents only reported a case of forcible entry,
malicious damage and conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace to the
11th – 12th Respondents.”

From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the 1st to the 5th
Respondents who believed that the Applicant and its agents have committed
certain offences, reported the matter to the law enforcement agents to enable
them investigate the matter. It is settled law that when a citizen believes that a
crime has been committed, or is in the process of being committed, or that there
is likelihood of an offence being committed, such a citizen is under a duty to
report the matter to the Police or other security apparatus or agency. The report
could be made via a petition or personally and the Police have no right to ignore
such a report.
See the cases of CHIEF (DR) FAJEMIROKUN VS COMMERCIAL BANK
(CREDIT LYONNAS LTD) & ORS (2009) 5 NWLR (PART 1135) 588 AT
600; and CHIEF PETER OGUEBE V FBN PLC & ANOR (2020) 4 SCM 119
AT 134H TO 135A-B.
Sequel to the foregoing, I am of the view that the 1st to 5th Respondents
had a civic duty to report the suspected offenders to the law enforcement agents.
It is in exercise of this civic duty that they made the report against the Applicant
and their agents. What happened after they made their report is entirely the
16
responsibility of the Police. The 1st to 5th Respondents cannot be held
responsible for the method or manner of investigation adopted by the police
after the report. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the 1st to 5th
Respondents were frivolous, reckless or acted in bad faith in reporting the
Applicant to the police. In the event they cannot be liable for any breach of the
alleged fundamental rights of the Applicant.
On the part of the 6th to the 13th Respondents, although they did not file
any Counter-Affidavit to this application, I observed that the 1st to the 5th
Respondents attached the Police Investigation Report as Exhibit “E” to their
Counter-Affidavit. I am of the view that from the facts disclosed in Exhibit “E”,
the police were carrying out their constitutional duties to investigate allegations
of crime.
It is settled law that by virtue of Section 4 of the Police Act, the 6th to 13th
Respondents have extensive powers of maintaining law and order. By that
Section, the Police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime,
the apprehension of offenders, the Preservation of law and order, the Protection
of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with
which they are directly charged. See Fawehinmi V. Inspector General of
Police (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt 767) 606; Ozah V. Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission & Ors (2017) LPELR 43386 and Azuka V.
Inspector General of Police (2007) CHR 69.
The point must be made that the duties of the police are both statutory
and constitutional. By seeking some protective reliefs from the Courts, the
Applicant is by implication trying to stop the police from performing their
lawful and constitutional duties. It is not right and it is not healthy for the Courts
to afford a shelter to people being investigated by the police for crimes.
Where the Courts accede to these types of requests, then investigating crimes in
this country would become difficult because the simple way to frustrate police
investigation is for every suspect to rush to the Court to obtain protective and
prohibitive orders. The Courts cannot and should not stop the police from
performing their lawful and constitutional duties. See Oguejiofor & Ors V.
Ibeabuchi (2017) LPELR 43590 and Attorney General Anambra State V. Uba
(2005) 33 WRN 191.
In the instant case, it is clear that the police were investigating the
Applicant and some other suspects in respect of the allegations of crimes
leveled against them by the 1st to 5th Respondents. I do not thing it would be fair
and just to grant the reliefs in this application which are directed at frustrating
the police investigation and possible prosecution of the Applicant and their
cohorts.
From the foregoing, I hold that the Applicant has failed to prove that it is
entitled to the reliefs which it seeks in this application. The sole issue for
determination is resolved against the Applicant. Consequently, this

17
application is dismissed with N100, 000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) in
favour of all the Respondents.

Hon. Justice P.A. Akhihiero

JUDGE
10/07/23

COUNSEL:
1. Pius Oiwoh Esq.…………………….……………………….Applicant
2. Nosakhare Obaizamomwan Esq…..…………..1st to 5th Respondents
3. Unrepresented…………………………………6th to 13th Respondents.

18