In the Federal High CourtHolden at Lagos, Nigeria,On Friday, September 16, 2011, Before the Honourable Justice O.E. Abang, JudgeSuit No. FHC/L/CS/653/2011BetweenMr. Jonathan Odutola (applicant/judgment creditor)andCorporal Edmund Ogwu,Commissioner Of Police,Lagos State Police CommandInspector Gen. of PoliceMr. A.O. AhmedLagos State Traffic Management Authority,The Commissioner, Lagos State Ministry of Transport(respondents/judgment debtors).SECTION 12(2b) (3) 5(a) & (B), 13(3) 14(1) and (2) of Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA)'s Law to the extent that it confers judicial powers on LASTMA to impound the vehicle of the applicant without consent and forcing him to pay illegal fine, thereby assuming judicial functions are hereby declared unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.So held the Federal High Court, holden at Lagos in a judgement delivered by His Lordship Justice Abang, O.E., while granting the applicants' prayers. The parties were represented by King Wilson for the applicant, Korede Adenuga for 4th-6th respondent, 1st to 3rd respondents absent and unrepresented though duly served with all court's processes. The facts are as contained in the body of the judgment.The applicant in a motion on notice dated May 31, 2011, brought pursuant to under Order 11(v) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 prayed this court for the following:' A declaration that the unlawful assault and illegal arrest seizure and continuous detention of the applicant's pick-up van with registration number BE 763 KSF by the respondents from March 18, 2011, till the time of filing this action is a breach as guaranteed by Section 34 of 1999 Constitution;' An order for written apology to be made by the respondents' offices to the applicant;' The sum of N10,000,000.00 as special damages in view of unlawful detention of the applicant's above described pick-up van and general damages.The application is supported by a statement showing the applicant's names, description of the applicant, reliefs sought. There is affidavit in support of 7 paragraphs to which one exhibit is attached and marked exhibit 'A.' Exhibit 'A' is a document captioned notification of offence number BE 736 KSF dated 18/3/2011. There is written address dated May 31, 2011. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred the court to a further affidavit dated July 26, 2011. Learned counsel relied on the depositions in the further affidavit and adopted his written address as his argument in the matter and thereafter urged the court to enter judgment in favour of the applicant by granting relief sought.Learned counsel for the 4th to 6th respondents on her part referred the court to the depositions in the counter-affidavit filed on July 20, 2011, in opposition. There is also a written address in support of the counter affidavit filed on July 20, 2011. Learned counsel Korede Adenuga adopted all the processes filed and humbly urged the court to dismiss the application.I have painstakingly considered the processes filed for and in opposition to the issues raised by the parties in this matter but the brief facts of this case first.The applicant in the processes filed claimed that while driving along 3rd Mainland Bridge on March 18, 2011, on his way to Laos and close to Ebute Meta exit with his Toyota Hilux Van Registration No. BE 736 KSF, he noticed that the vehicle had minor electrical fault, which made the vehicle to stop suddenly. In order to ensure free flow of traffic, he hired a towing van to move the vehicle to hard shoulder close to Ebute Meta on the 3rd Mainland Bridge, a place, which according to the applicant, is meant to rectify vehicles with minor problems.The applicant further explained that on getting to the hard shoulder, he met two policemen, one of them being the 1st respondent. That he explained the problem to the two policemen that he intended calling on a technician to come and rectify the electrical fault in the vehicle. According to the applicant, the two policemen requested for a gratification otherwise called 'bribe,' failing which they would not allow the technician to work on the vehicle. The applicant also claimed that the policemen said that they would invite LASTMA (Lagos State Traffic Management Agency) to tow the vehicle to their office.That he refused to offer the Policemen bribe. That in his bid to ensure that the technician carried out the repairs that one of the Policemen slapped him twice and the other with gun used the gun butt to hit him and threatened to shoot the technician if either of them made attempt to repair or fix the vehicle. That before this time, the Policemen invited LASTMA officials that came and towed his vehicle with force and against his consent to their office at Sura area of Lagos Island. That his vehicle was towed by LASTMA officials with their removal truck with registration number BK 931 BDG.The applicant claimed that he informed LASTMA officials that it is illegal of them to tow his vehicle from the hard shoulder because, according to him, it is a place specifically designed for fixing faulty vehicles plying the 3rd Mainland Bridge. That his explanation and lamentation fell on deaf ears and LASTMA forcefully in a crude primitive manner towed his vehicle to their base in Sura area of Lagos Island.That on arrival at LASTMA's office at Sura he was given a notification of offence ticket and was asked to pay the sum of N12,000. The applicant relied on exhibit 'A' which is the ticket issued by the 5th respondent to him. That he was made and/or subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and his movement was restricted on that day as his vehicle was impounded unlawfully. That his estimation lowered before people in the busy Sura area of Lagos Island.That he could not get his vehicle released. That he wrote a letter dated April 6, 2011, to the Special Adviser on Transportation Lagos State Government explaining circumstances of how he was put into untold hardship by LASTMA officials and demanded compensation and apology. That nothing useful came out of this though he was directed to go and pay half of the amount endorsed on the ticket and to collect his vehicle but failed to consider the deprivation for use of the vehicle for the period under review and the untold hardship he was made to go through.That he has been deprived the use of his vehicle for two months and that as an engineer, that he bas been using the van to engage in supplies of goods such as designer doors, bullet-proof doors, heavy tools, paint, woods, polish from either factory to site or from on site to another and he made an average N50,000 per day from the vehicle though now he has engaged another means of transportation. That he has been made to suffer series of inhuman treatment and deprivation of personal liberty as his movement has been restricted in many ways due to the deprivation of the use of his van by LASTMA.The applicant further stated that the action of the respondents was demeaning. That he was embarrassed and ridiculed and his estimation lowered before passers-by at the ever-busy 3rd Mainland Bridge and before the two technicians who looked up to him as a charismatic personality and a role model. That LASTMA officials are fond of abusing their office so also the Policemen and that he filed this action seeking redress.The 1st to 3rd respondents did not react to the processes filed notwithstanding that they were duly served with the originating process and also the hearing notice of the proceedings of the court the day the matter was slated for hearing.The deponent of the counter-affidavit, Ahmed Akeem Olalekan, the 4th respondent in his matter and acting for the 5th and 6th respondents, claimed that he was not at the scene of where the applicant's vehicle was towed. That he was in his office when a driver of LASTMA towing truck towed a Toyota Hilux Pickup Van to their office at 1 Sura, Lagos Island. That the driver, Mr. Fidelis, told him that as he was driving LASTMA's towing truck from LASTMA Headquarters at Oshodi along 3rd Mainland Bridge with LASTMA officials, he noticed that a Toyota Hilux Pick-up broke down at the hard shoulder close to Ebute Meta on the 3rd Mainland Bridge. That he stopped his own towing truck and enquired from the two policemen standing by the pick-up van of what transpired or before their arrival at the hard shoulder.That the two policemen confirmed that the vehicle developed mechanical problems. Having confirmed that the vehicle broke down, he then towed the pickup van to LASTMA'S zone 1 park yard. He confirmed also that the applicant was made to pay N12,000; N10,000 for towing the vehicle and N2,000 as fine, the vehicle having broken down at 3rd Mainland Bridge. He claimed that he was not on the 3rd Mainland Bridge where the Toyota Hilux Pickup van was when it was towed to their office.That the removing/towing of the vehicle to their office is one of the statutory duties of the LASTMA officials. That if the vehicle was not towed, it would have caused obstruction of traffic on the bridge. That the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought.In further affidavit, the applicant stated that the deponent was the leader of the team that came to tow his vehicle at the hard shoulder and that he led the team from his office in response to a call made by the 1st respondent who was at the scene of the incident and his name clearly stated in exhibit 'A' as apprehending officer. The applicant attached exhibits B to B2 i.e. photographs to show that he actually towed the vehicle to hard shoulder with a view to repairing the technical fault. That hard shoulder is designed for repair or correction of technical or mechanical problems developed by vehicles plying 3rd Mainland Bridge. That a vehicle parked at the hard shoulder is completely off traffic and hence cannot cause any obstruction to other road-users. Learned counsel for the 4th to 6th respondents, Adenuga Korede, urged the court to dismiss the suit.The main issue in this suit apart from the alleged degrading treatment meted to the applicant by the 1st to 3rd respondents, is whether the 4th ' 6th respondents in discharge of their statutory duty to regulate traffic have a right to assume judicial power vested in the court of law by impounding a vehicle of an alleged traffic offender and forcing him or her to pay fine for the traffic offence alleged to have been committed by the road-user.The other ancillary issue, which is dependent on the 1st issue is whether indeed the applicant's vehicle obstructed free flow of traffic to warrant the vehicle being towed to LASTMA's office against the applicant's wish and consent and whether by assaulting the but applicant then, I want to quickly point out that this is a judgment of this court based on application to enforce applicant's fundamental rights of dignity to his person, freedom of movement, denial fair hearing and right to own property and such property should not be taken away from him except in with the due process of law. These are fundamental rights recognised under chapter IV of 1999 Constitution. Again in an application to enforce fundamental rights of a citizen of this country, the Federal High Court and State High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction.(To be continued).
Click here to read full news..
