➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Naankang Dawan v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission & Ors. (17th July 2019, CA/J/311/2018)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Unfreeze bank account;
Fundamental right.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
This appeal is from the judgment of the Federal High Court dismissing the fundamental rights enforcement application of the appellant against the respondents. Appellant in his said application sought, inter alia: ‘1.An order perpetually restraining any further arrest, intimidation or detention of the applicant by the respondents, their privies, agents and officers, pending the determination of this fundamental right enforcement. 2. An order compelling the 8th respondent to unfreeze the account and not to tamper with any amount therein the accounts maintained by the applicant’.
In his judgment, the lower court (Kurya, J.) held that from the process filed 8th respondent had ‘clearly shown’ that appellant was involved in monumental International Cybercrime. That ‘the staggering sum of N908,271.096.00 is the proceeds of the Cybercrime received from 238 debit cards issued in several countries including USA, Canada, Brazil, Holland, Greece and some other countries home and abroad. That respondents have not violated the rights of appellant in any way as to merit the grant of the reliefs he sought. That appellant had not made out a case for to entitle the court to interfere with the statutory functions of the 1st respondent (EFCC) to investigate the allegation of crime against appellant. On that note, the said application of appellant was dismissed.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Whether the trial court was right to have dismissed the appellant’s claim for failing to make out a case for the enforcement of his fundamental rights against the respondents?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL DISMISSED]
↪️ ISSUE 1: IN RESPONDENT’S FAVOUR.
[THE APPELLANT CANNOT ASK FOR THE COMPANY’S BANK ACCOUNT TO BE UNFROZEN
‘I think this issue can be decided on the short point that appellantbeing not Taen Nigeria Ltd. whose account was frozen cannotcompetently ask for the unfreezing of the said account. Yes, hemay be its directing mind but that does not make him the companyor owner of its account. The company is a distinct person in law: see Olalekan v. Wema Bank Plc (2006) LPELR- 2562 (SC); (2006)13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 617 and Ebhota & Ors v. Plateau Investment & Property Development Co. Ltd. (2005) LPELR-988 (SC); (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 948) 266.’
‘It is also recognized that an artificial person like Taen Nigeria Ltd. can sue for enforcement of its fundamental rights: see Okechukwu v. EFCC (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1490) 1 @ 24 E-F.Incidentally, appellant in his reply brief to 8th respondent’s brief of argument did not respond to these arguments of 8th respondent. By his silence, he is deemed to have conceded to them: see Okongwu v.NNPC (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 115) 296; Nwankwo v. Yar’Adua (2010) 3 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 244 @ 265; (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518. In the event, this issue is resolved against appellant.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘In the final analysis, I am of the same opinion with the lower court that appellant failed to prove breach of his fundamental right by the respondents, more so as he is not even under arrest. In any case, the court will not hastily interfere with the statutory powers of law enforcement agencies like 1st to 7th respondents in the exercise of their statutory right to investigate alleged offences and detain, where necessary, for purposes of that investigation: see Danfulani v. EFCC (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1493) 223 @ 246; Kalu v. F.R.N.(2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 1 @ 19 (SC). The attitude of the courts is to deal with each case of arrest and detention on its merits when it occurs and comes before them. For all of these reasons, I find no merit in this appeal and hereby dismiss it.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿ ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCE TO TIME IS WAIVED BY THE APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO THE AFFIDAVIT
And proceeding to specifics, I am in agreement with 8th respondent that appellant having responded to 1st, 2nd and 7th respondents counter affidavits with further affidavits and addresses is deemed to have waived the alleged non-compliance with respect to time of filing those affidavits and cannot be heard to object to them: See the cases of C.C.B. (Nig.) Plc v.A.-G., Anambra State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 261) 528 at 547 and Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 511 at page 545 where the apex court emphatically confirmed this. In Atanda v. Ajani supra(at p. 545) it was even further said (Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C) that the times fixed by the rules of court for filing of processes are meant for the convenience of parties so they are at liberty to waive them as appellant did in this case. — Ugo JCA.
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Ugo, J.C.A.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
