Justice Prevails: Court Throws Out Brothers-in-Law’s N10m Rights Suit Against Widow

A Federal High Court, Lagos, has dismissed a N10 million fundamental rights enforcement suit, filed by two brothers, Mr. Chigozie Ubah and Tochukwu Ubah, against the Police and their late brother’s wife, as first to six respondents

The respondents in the suit are; Inspection-General of Police (IGP); Commissioner of Police (FIB) Force Headquarters (Annex); Supol Dare; Supol Samuel; Inspector Ahmed Umar and Ruth Kotsethomo, the applicants’ late brother’s widow and mother of five.

Justice Yellim Bogoro who presided over the court dismissed the two brothers’ suit for lacking in merit.

The applicants through their lawyer, C. E. Amadi, in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/1261/2024, filed Pursuant to Order 2 Rules 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction have asked the court for several reliefs.

Some of the reliefs sought by the applicants include: “a declaration that the threat to arrest, detain and dehumanize the applicants, by the 1st respondents, their officers and lieutenants under the instigation of 6th respondent is unlawful and a gross violation of applicants’ rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement provided for under Section 35 and 41 respectively of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Article 6 and 12 of African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2004.

“A declaration that the intimidation, harassment and continuous threat with imprisonment of the applicants by the respondents in a purely civil matter constitutes a violation of applicants’ fundamental human rights.

“An order restraining the 1st -5th respondents, their officers and lieutenants from further intimidating, harassing, arresting and detaining the applicants in relation to the property of the deceased Mr. Chidozie Ubah, which is currently subject to an application for Letters of Administration, pending before the Lagos Probate Registry.

“An order restraining the 1st-5th respondents, their officers and lieutenants from further intimidating, harassing and arresting the applicants pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

“Compensatory general damages of N10 million, jointly and severally against the respondents for the unlawful violation of the applicants’ fundamental rights as entrenched and guaranteed under Chapter IV of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.”

The two applicants supported their suit with separate affidavits of 14 and 17 paragraphs respectively, written addresses, where they formulated three issues. And urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought against the respondents.

In response to the suit, the first to fifth respondents through their lawyer, filed a 15 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by one Inspector Umar Mohammed, and urged the court to dismiss the applicants’ suit with substantial cost for lacking in merit.

Specifically, the first to fifth respondents in the affidavit stated that their actions was based on the investigation in the case of Threats to Lives through Abduction and Kidnap of Ruth Kotsethomo Ubah and her Children.

The deponent, while denied most of the applicants’ aveerments also stated that the rights of the applicants or any of their relatives have not been violated, and that the court will not restrain police from carrying out its statutory functions.

In the same vein, the sixth respondent in the suit, Mrs. Ruth Kotsethomo Ubah, the widow of the applicants’ late brother, Chigozie Ubah, through her lawyer, A. A. Kilani, filed filed a 35 counter-affidavit, wherein she denied some of the allegations made against her by her brother-in-laws in their affidavits. And a written address attached with some documentary exhibits.

She equally formulated an issue for determination. The issue which was “Whether the 6th respondent’s actions are proper and thus not in breach of the applicants’ Fundamental Human Rights, is the submission of counsel that the respondents’ action particularly that of the 6th respondent is not a breach of the Fundamental Human Rights of the applicants. The applicants particularly only rushed to court to use the machinery of the Honourable Court to shield themselves from investigation and pervert the course of justice.”

Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Bogoro after perused through all the processes filed by the parties and the authorities cited held that: “from the counter affidavit of the 6th respondent, she stated she reported a case of conspiracy for stealing a Toyota Venza and Range Rover against the applicants. The Police has a discretion whether or not to conduct an investigation into any allegation of crime made to them and once the discretion is properly executed the Court will not interfere.

“It could be seen that from the evidence before the Court in the discharge of their duty the 1st to 5th respondents invited the applicants while 2nd applicant honoured the invitation some weeks after the invitation, the 1st applicant never honoured the invitation.

“It is the position that every person has a duty to report any semblance of crime unless it is done mala fide. The report of any criminal allegation will not constitute the instigation upon the Police to act. I have not found any malice in the report made by the 6th respondent, she will therefore not be held liable for instigating to police against the applicants.

“Having considered the above, I have come to the conclusion that the police has statutory duty and power to accept, investigate complaint on allegation of crime against the applicants. The mere invitation by phone of the applicants and the interface with the 2nd applicant will not amount to breach or threat to the breach of the applicants fundamental rights.

“I hold that the police acted within the ambit of the law when they invited the applicants for questioning based on the petition made against them.

“In all, I find that the applicants have not establish that their fundamental rights was violated as such I find against the applicants.

The application has failed, same is dismissed because the case has failed the court cannot make any order for damages.”