IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF KADUNA STATE
IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
SUIT NO:
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ABUBAKAR SULAIMAN AND MUSA
USMAN FOR AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDEMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO
DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSONS AS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED ) 2011
AND ARTICLE 5 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
(RATIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT ) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004, AND RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED) 2011
AND ARTICLE 11 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
(RATIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDEMENTAL
RIGHTS PURSUANTS TO ORDER 2, RULES,1,2,3,4, AND 5 OF FUNDEMENTAL
RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009
BETWEEN
1. ABUBAKAR SULAIMAN
2. MUSA USMAN APPLICANTS
AND
1. ALHAJI SALISU IBRAHIM
2. ASP HAMZASALISU IBRAHIM
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUNA RESPONDENTS
4. AC CID XSQUAD KADUNA
5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
6. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION
MOTION ON NOTICE
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER VI, RULES 1-5 OF THE FUNDEMENTAL RIGHTS
( ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES, 2009, SECTIONS 34, 41,44, AND
36RESPECTIVELY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
1999 (AS AMENDED ) 2011 AND ARTICLES 5, 11, 14 AND 7 RESPECTIVELY OF THE
AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS (RATIFICATION AND
ENFORCEMENT ) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004,
TAKE NOTICE that this honorable court will be moved on the ----------------------day
of----------------------------------2025 at the hour of 9 o’clock in the forenoon or so soon
thereafter as the Applicant or counsel on its behalf may be heard praying this court for the
following orders:
1. A DECLARATION that the continuing harassment and intimidation by inviting the
Applicants on a civil case which is pending at Supreme Court by the Respondents
is illegal, unconstitutional and same constitutes breach of the provisions of Section
34(1)(d) of the Constitution Of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended and
Article 5 of the African Charter on Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification And
Enforcement ) Act Cap A9 LFN 2004,
2. A DECLARATION that the invitation of the applicants by the 4th Defendants and
threat to arrest the Applicant on a case bordering on title to land which is still
pending at Supreme Court forcing the Applicants to run to hide is illegal, ultra vires
and unconstitutional as it offends the express provision of section 41 of the
Constitution Of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended and article 11 of the
African Charter on Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification And Enforcement ) Act
Cap A9 LFN 2004,
3. AN ORDER restraining the Respondent their agents, privies, acquaintances or any
person acting on their behalf or instructions from, inviting, intimidating, threatening
to arrest or arresting the Applicants.
4. AN ORDER of the honourable court directing the Respondents to tender an
unreserved public apology to the Applicant.
5. AN ORDER of the honourable court awarding the sum of N1 000, 000.00 (one
Million Naira) only as compensation against the Respondent for willfully violating the
Applicant’s rights.
Dated this…………….day of……………………………….2025
_____________
__________
Abubakar Sulaiman Esq
Sani Abubakar Esq
N.A. Ibrahim Esq
S.N. Hassan Esq
M.M. Imam Esq
Applicant’s Counsels
PP: Abdullahi Sani and Co
No A3 Ahmadu Bello way (Bakori House)
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. ALHAJI SALISU IBRAHIM
2. ASP HAMZASALISU IBRAHIM
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUN
4. AC CID XSQUAD KADUNA
5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
6. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF KADUNA STATE
IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
SUIT NO:
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ABUBAKAR SULAIMAN AND MUSA
USMAN FOR AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDEMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO
DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSONS AS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED ) 2011
AND ARTICLE 5 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
(RATIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT ) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004, AND RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED) 2011
AND ARTICLE 11 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
(RATIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDEMENTAL
RIGHTS PURSUANTS TO ORDER 2, RULES,1,2,3,4, AND 5 OF FUNDEMENTAL
RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009
BETWEEN
1. ABUBAKAR SULAIMAN
2. MUSA USMAN APPLICANTS
AND
1. ALHAJI SALISU IBRAHIM
2. ASP HAMZASALISU IBRAHIM
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUN
4. AC CID XSQUAD KADUNA
5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
6. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION …………………………………..RESPONDENTS
A. STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT:
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT.
The 1st Applicant is a Male, adult, Muslim, and a legal practitioner whose office is located
att No A3 Ahmadu Bello Way Kaduna, Kaduna North Local Government Kaduna State
within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court.
B. RELIEFS SOUGHT
1. A DECLARATION that the continuing harassment and intimidation by inviting the
Applicants on a civil case which is pending at Supreme Court by the Respondents
is illegal, unconstitutional and same constitutes breach of the provisions of Section
34(1)(d) of the Constitution Of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended and
Article 5 of the African Charter on Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification And
Enforcement ) Act Cap A9 LFN 2004,
2. A DECLARATION that the invitation of the applicants by the 4th Respondents and
threat to arrest the Applicant on a case bordering on title to land which is still
pending at Supreme Court forcing the Applicants to run to hide is illegal, ultra vires
and unconstitutional as it offends the express provision of section 41 of the
Constitution Of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended and article 11 of the
African Charter on Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification And Enforcement ) Act
Cap A9 LFN 2004,
3. AN ORDER restraining the Respondent their agents, privies, acquaintances or any
person acting on their behalf or instructions from, inviting, intimidating, threatening
to arrest or arresting the Applicants.
4. AN ORDER of the honourable court directing the Respondents to tender an
unreserved public apology to the Applicant.
5. AN ORDER of the honourable court awarding the sum of N1 000, 000.00 (one
Million Naira) only as compensation against the Respondent for willfully violating the
Applicant’s rights.
C. GROUNDS FOR THE RELIEFS SOUGHT
1. That by virtue of the provisions of Section 34(1)(d) of the Constitution Of Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended and Article 5 of the African Charter on
Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification And Enforcement ) Act Cap A9 LFN
2004, the act of the Respondent of inviting the Applicants, threatening, harassing
by inviting the Applicants on a civil case bordering on title pending at the
Supreme court and issuing threats without any justification is illegal
unconstitutional and same constitutes inhumane and degrading treatment
towards the person of the Applicants.
2. A DECLARATION that the invitation of the applicants by the 4th Defendants and
threat to arrest the Applicants on a case bordering on title to land which is still
pending at Supreme Court forcing the Applicants to run to hide is illegal, ultra
vires and unconstitutional as it offends the express provision of section 41 of the
Constitution Of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as Amended and article 11 of
the African Charter on Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification And
Enforcement ) Act Cap A9 LFN 2004,
Dated this………………….day of ……………………...2025
_______________________
Abubakar Sulaiman Esq
Sani Abubakar Esq
N.A. Ibrahim Esq
S.N. Hassan Esq
M.M. Imam Esq
Applicant’s Counsels
PP: Abdullahi Sani and Co
No A3 Ahmadu Bello way (Bakori House)
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. ALHAJI SALISU IBRAHIM
2. ASP HAMZASALISU IBRAHIM
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUN
4. AC CID XSQUAD KADUNA
5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
6. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF KADUNA STATE
IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
SUIT NO:
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ABUBAKAR SULAIMAN AND MUSA
USMAN FOR AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDEMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO
DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSONS AS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED ) 2011
AND ARTICLE 5 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
(RATIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT ) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004, AND RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF sMOVEMENT AS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED) 2011
AND ARTICLE 11 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
(RATIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDEMENTAL
RIGHTS PURSUANTS TO ORDER 2, RULES,1,2,3,4, AND 5 OF FUNDEMENTAL
RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009
BETWEEN
1. ABUBAKAR SULAIMAN
2. MUSA USMAN APPLICANTS
AND
1. ALHAJI SALISU IBRAHIM
2. ASP HAMZA SALISU IBRAHIM
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUNA
4. AC CID X SQUAD KADUNA
5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
6. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION …………………………………..RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
ENFORCEMENT
I, Musa Usman, male, adult, Muslim, Nigerian of No Z5 Jaji Road, Abakwa Kaduna,
Kaduna North Local Government Kaduna, Kaduna state do hereby make oath and states as
follows:
1. That I am the 2nd Applicant by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts of this
case.
2. That one Mr Godwin Adaji Ojonye is the son of Mr Adaji Ojonye the former owner of
the property No Z5 Jaji Road, Abakwa Kaduna, Kaduna State.
3. That the said Adaji was the lawful owner and was in active possession of the
property No. Z5 Jaji Road, Abakwa Kaduna Kaduna State.
4. That while the said Adaji Ojonye was enjoying his peaceful possession of the
property, in 1994, the 1st Respondent in this suit, sued him before the High court of
Justice Kaduna for declaration of title and claims of arrears of rent.
5. That this court gave judgment in favour of the Respondent and Mr Adaji Ojonye
aggrieved with the decision, Appealed the decision of this court and same was
nullified at the Court of Appeal in favour of Mr Ojonye. The certified true copy of the
judgment of the Court of Appeal is hereby attached and marked as exhibits “A”
6. That even when the 1st Respondent lost on appeal, he fraudulently applied for a
Certificate of Occupancy of the property and same was issued to him by the Kaduna
State Ministry of land (now Kaduna State Geographic Information Service (KADGIS))
in 2008 without doing any due diligence, issued the 1 st Respondent certificate of
occupancy over a property the 1st Respondent lost in court and not in active
possession.
7. That the 1st Respondent using same certificate of occupancy obtained fraudulently
reapplied for recertification from the Kaduna State Geographic Information Service
(KADGIS) without disclosing that the property was a subject of litigation and was
granted same also without due diligence done as to who is the real owner of the
property.
8. That Mr Adaji Ojonye, having won on appeal against the 1 st Respondent, he
continued to stay in the property until his death.
9. That after the death of Mr. Adaji Ojonye, his son one Godwin Adaji Ojonye then
inherited the property and sold same to one Alhaji Ado Yalo Ibrahim sometimes on
26th April, 2006. The copy of the sales agreement dated 26 th April, 2006 is hereby
attached and marked as exhibit “B”.
10. That Lawal Ado Yalo inherited the property from his father Alhaji Ado Yalo Ibrahim
and sold same to Nasiru Ado Yalo sometimes on 25 th January, 2008. The sales
agreement written in Hausa language and English translated copy are hereby
annexed and marked as exhibits “C1 and C2” respectively.
11. That Nasiru Ado Yalo sold the property to one Alhaji Mamman Tambuwal
sometimes on 18th March, 2008. The sales agreement written in Hausa language
and English translated copy are hereby attached and marked as exhibits “D1” and
D2” respectively.
12. That the said Alhaji Mamman Tambuwal also sold the property to one Alhaji Ramat
Ali on 6th June, 2008. The sales agreement written in Hausa language and English
translated copy is hereby attached and marked as exhibits “E1” and E2” respectively.
13. That the said Ramat Ali appointed one Abdulazeez Alo as his lawful attorney via a
power of attorney dated 1st November, 2008. The copy of the power of attorney is
hereby attached and marked as exhibit “F”.
14. That pursuant to the power of attorney, the said Abdulazeez Alo sold the property in
dispute to Usman Abubakar sometimes on 3rd November, 2008. The copy of the
sales agreement is hereby attached and marked as exhibit “G”
15. That the Applicant inherited the property from the said Usman Abubakar being the
father of the 2nd Applicant.
16. That at no point in time the 1st Respondent ever assumed possession of the property
in question.
17. That since the court of appeal gave its judgment against the 1st Respondent in 2001,
the 1st Respondent did not raise the issue until now.
18. That the 1st Respondent lives in Abakwa Kaduna State some few metres away from
the property in disputes.
19. That the property has changed many hands since 2001 to date and the 1st
Respondent was aware and done nothing until now.
20. That sometimes in May, 2024 the 1 st Respondent filed another writ for declaration of
title against me.
21. That in the paragraph 9 of the witness deposition on oath of one Hanafi Hussaini in
the writ the 1st Respondent deposed that they have appealed the case to Supreme
Court.
22. That on that basis we filed a motion for preliminary objection on the ground of abuse
of court process.
23. That the court upheld our objection and struck out the case of the 1 st Respondent on
the ground that since the case is still pending at Supreme court the 1 st respondent’s
act of filing another writ for declaration of title is an abuse of court process. The copy
of the records of proceedings of the case is hereby annexed and marked as exhibit
“H”.
24. That while we are waiting for the case at Supreme Court, the 1 st Respondent used
his son the 2nd Respondent who connived with his colleagues at the office of the 3 rd
Respondent who assigned the 4th Respondent to harras the Applicants.
25. That the 1st Applicant was invited by the 4th Defendant who honoured the invitation.
26. That the 1st Applicant laid bare the facts and evidences showing that the case is a
civil case bordering on title and same is pending before the supreme Court.
27. That the 4th Respondent said it was a directive from the 3 rd, and 5th Respondents
hence they don’t care they must deal with us.
28. That they told the 1st Respondent that he should inform me to report myself or else
we would be arrested and humiliated.
29. That the 4th Respondent dispatched their officers all over the town looking for us to
be arrested even before the expiration of the two weeks they demanded our
presence.
30. That we could not go out to fend for our families and do our businesses in fear of
humiliation and harassment from the officers of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents.
31. That the 4th Respondent despite knowing that the case is a case civil case bordering
on declaration of title kept harassing the applicants by threatening to arrest them.
32. That since when the Applicants were threatened by the 4th Respondents they ran into
hiding and could not go their places of works.
33. That the act of the Respondents constitutes breach of the fundamental rights of the
Applicants.
34. That the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents have no power to get involved in cases
involving declaration of title more so that the case is sub judice before Supreme
court.
35. That it is in the interest of justice to grant this application.
36. That I depose to this affidavit in good faith and in accordance with the Oaths Act.
Illiterate Jurat
Sworn to at the High Court Registry Kaduna, after the contents of this deposition have been
read by me Abubakar Sulaiman Esq and interpreted to the Deponent in Hausa Language
and he appeared to understood same before affixing his right thumb impression in my
presence
_____________________
Abubakar Sulaiman Esq. _____________________
Deponent
Sworn to at the High Court Registry Kaduna
This_____________ Day of __________________ 2025
BEFORE ME
COMMISSIONER FOR OATH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF KADUNA STATE
IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
SUIT NO:
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ABUBAKAR SULAIMAN AND MUSA
USMAN FOR AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDEMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO
DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSONS AS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED ) 2011
AND ARTICLE 5 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
(RATIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT ) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004, AND RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT sssAS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED) 2011
AND ARTICLE 11 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
(RATIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT) ACT CAP A9 LFN 2004
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDEMENTAL
RIGHTS PURSUANTS TO ORDER 2, RULES,1,2,3,4, AND 5 OF FUNDEMENTAL
RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009
BETWEEN
1. ABUBAKAR SULAIMAN
2. MUSA USMAN APPLICANTS
AND
1. ALHAJI SALISU IBRAHIM
2. ASP HAMZASALISU IBRAHIM
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUN
4. AC CID XSQUAD KADUNA
5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
6. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION …………………………………..RESPONDENTS
AND
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUNA………………RESPONDENT
APPLICANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
1.0. INTRODUCTION:
1.1 This is an application brought pursuant to the provisions of Fundamental Rights
(Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 and the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act cap A9 LFN 2004. where the
Applicants are seeking for the enforcement of his Rights to dignity of human person
and right to freedom of movement as contained in Section 34(1) and Section 41 of
the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) And Article 5
and 11 Of The African Charter On Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification And
Enforcement) Act Cap A9 LFN 2004 respectively.
1.2 The Originating process filed, contained the statement of the Applicants, the reliefs
sought and the grounds which formed the basis for the reliefs sought. In support of
this Application is a 36 Paragraphs Affidavit deposed to by the 2nd Applicant himself.
2.0 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the invitation based on a civil case bordering on declaration of title, threats
to arrest and intimidation of the Applicants by the Respondents is not a violation of
his right to dignity of human person and right to freedom of movement as enshrine in
Section 34 (1) and section 41 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) as well as Article
5 and article 11 m of The African Charter On Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification
And Enforcement ) Act Cap A9 LFN 2004 respectively
2.1 LEGAL ARGUMENTS
ISSUE ONE
Whether the invitation based on a civil case bordering on declaration of title, threats
to arrest and intimidation of the Applicants by the Respondents is not a violation of
their right to dignity of human person and right to freedom of movement as enshrine
in Section 34 (1) and section 41 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) as well as
Article 5 and 11 Of The African Charter On Human And Peoples’ Rights (Ratification
And Enforcement ) Act Cap A9 LFN 2004 respectively.
Order II of the Fundamental Right Enforcement rules 2009 provided that any party whose
right is infringed or about to be infringed can filed a case of fundamental right before any
court with jurisdiction.
“Any person who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided for
in the Constitution or African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act and to which he is entitled, has been, is
being, or is likely to be infringed, may apply to the Court in the State where
the infringement occurs or is likely to occur, for redress”
We most humbly submit with the greatest respect that the invitation of the Applicants on a
case bordering on declaration of title, threats and threat to arrest the Applicants by the
Respondents is a gross violation of their rights to dignity of human person and freedom of
movement as enshrine in Section 34 (1) and 41 of the 1999 constitution (as
amended)as well as Article 5 and 11 Of The African Charter On Human And Peoples’
Rights (Ratification And Enforcement ) Act Cap A9 LFN 2004 respectively.
Section 34(1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides thus:
“34 (1) Every individual is entitled to respect for the
dignity of his person, and accordingly-
(a) no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment;”
The conduct of the Respondents of threatening to arrest and intimidating the Applicant as
is clearly contained in Paragraphs in the affidavit clearly shows an abuse of power by the
Respondent as there is no justification whatsoever for their act.
We humbly submit that although it is an invitation the act of the Respondents is clearly a
threat to invite the Applicants on a civil case they have no power over. These types of
invitation have been frowned against by the Court of Appeal in the case of AKINBOLAJI &
ORS v. TAIWO (2018) LPELR-46578(CA) the court of Appeal held thus:
"It can be inferred from the credible and uncontroverted affidavit evidence
(supra) of the respondent that the "invitation" by the police had coerced undertone
with subtle/soft subterranean hint of enforcing it by physical arrest, if need be, which
obliged the respondent to comply with the "invitation" thus amounting to an arrest
vide the apt case of Aigoro v. Anebunwa (1966) N.N.L.R. 87 at 92 where it was held
inter alia that - "The second observation is relevant to the case before us. It is
necessary to amplify what was said in the passage we have just read from the
judgment in Ateze v. Morna. There may be apprehension of force as much
from an implied threat of force as from a threat expressly made, and a
mistaken belief that legal process is being used or exists can bring about a
submission just as real and effective as could be caused by any actual legal
process. The question for a Court will always be whether there is evidence, direct or
inferential, of a submission on the part of the plaintiff and a consequent
restraint of his liberty. ... in complying with the "invitation" at that moment and
in those circumstances the respondent can hardly be supposed to have been
doing what he wanted to do or acting of his own free will…..”
Also in the case of MANGAI v. C-P PLATEAU STATE & ORS (2021) LPELR-55145(CA the
court of appeal held thus:
"The law has since been settled, that the Police does not and is not
allowed to involve itself in purely civil disputes, especially one touching on
land ownership, contract and debt collection. Each time a party's complaint to
the Police involves such issues of land dispute, debt collection and
enforcement of contract, the standing instruction is for the Police to hands off and
advise the parties to seek civil resolution of the dispute in a civil Court. See the
case of Kure Vs COP (2020) LPELR - 49378 (SC); Skye Bank Plc Vs Njoku & Ors
(2016) LPELR - 40447 CA. In Ogbonna Vs Ogbonna (2014) LPELR - 22308 CA; (2014)
23 WRN 48, it was held: "...party that employs the police or any law enforcement
agency to violate the fundamental rights of a citizen should be ready to face the
consequences, either alone or with the misguided agency... The police
have no business helping parties to settle or recover debts. We have also
deprecated the resort by aggrieved creditors to the police to arrest their
debtors, using one guise of criminal wrong doing or another." The same
principle as in the case of wrong use of police or security agency to
recover debt, also applies to the use of Police to enforce contract or fight
trespass to land”
The act of the Respondent is not supportable under any guise of any law not even under
section 45 of the Constitution. The Respondent who are an institution trained to protect the
state and the citizenry as well as the guardian of law, they engaged in the harassment of the
innocent Applicant. The court held in the case of A.S.E.S.A. v. EKWENEM (2001) FWLR
(PART 51) 2034 at 2054-55
“The law bestows on every citizen resident in Nigeria, both high and
low, a right to go about his or her lawful business unmolested or
unhampered by anyone else, be it government functionary or private
individual and the court will frown on any manifestation of arbitrary
power assumed by anyone over the life or property of another, even if
that other is suspected of having breached some law or regulation” .
In view of the foregoing, we submit that the conduct of the Respondents in the instance
case amount to a gross violation of the Applicant’s right which must not go unchecked and
therefore the Applicant are entitled to a remedy.
In the case of NAWA v. A.G CROSS RIVER STATE (2008) PT 401 P. 807 AT. 842 PARAS
B-E Per JEAN OMOKRI JCA stated thus:
“If a right has been infringed whether it is a fundamental or statutory right and
the aggrieved party comes to the court for enforcement of the right, it will not
be given complete relief if the court merely declares the existence of such
right or the fact that the existing right has been infringed. It is the duty of the
court to order a proper remedy. . .”
(Underlining ours)
From the principle enunciated in the above judicial authorities especially the underlined
portions, we humbly submit that the proper remedy for the Applicants in this case is
immediate restrain by the respondent of continued harassment to invite, threatening to
arrest and intimidating the Applicants, payment of compensation and Apology from the
Respondents. This is as clearly stated in section 35 (6) of the 1999 constitution (as
amended). Section 35 (6) provides thus:
“Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to
compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or
person; . . .”
On the whole, we finally submit that the conduct of the Respondents cannot be supported or
accommodated by any law and as such amounts to a flagrant violation of the applicant’s
right to dignity of human persons and freedom of movement as enshrined in the
Constitution and we urge the court to so hold and grant all our reliefs.
3.0 CONCLUSION:
In view of the foregoing arguments, it is our humble submission the Applicants had shown
sufficient proof and reasons why they are entitled to the reliefs sought. We humbly urged
the court to so hold.
May it please my lord.
Dated this_____________day of …………………………………2025
_______________________
Abubakar Sulaiman Esq
Sani Abubakar Esq
N.A. Ibrahim Esq
S.N. Hassan Esq
M.M. Imam Esq
Applicant’s Counsels
PP: Abdullahi Sani and Co
No A3 Ahmadu Bello way (Bakori House)
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. ALHAJI SALISU IBRAHIM
2. ASP HAMZASALISU IBRAHIM
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUN
4. AC CID XSQUAD KADUNA
5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
6. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION