It is said that courts are not Father Christmas; ordinarily, they cannot give what they were not asked by the litigant. This is in with the general principle that courts and parties are bound by the pleadings. However, the Supreme Court in the popular case of Amaechi vs. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (pt.1080) propounded an instance where a court can grant consequential reliefs in the interest of justice even where such have not been specifically claimed. Though the Amaechi’s case was decided on election matter, by doctrine of stare decisis, it is an individual authority illustrative or disproof of a generalization of the common law principle of parties and courts being bound by their pleadings and the reliefs thereof. The Supreme Court has by implication further expounded the principle to cases of fundamental rights enforcement.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Idrinstitute.jpg")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024.lidw_.jpg")
Essentially, it is a trite Common Law principle on award of damages or any relief that it is not enough for any person claiming to have been legally wronged or injured in any court of law to only prove such injury without specifically seeking any relief therefore. Meanwhile, the technical rule of Common Law is that the court would be incompetent to award any damages/compensation whatsoever if not specifically asked for. In other words, as rightly said the court is not a Father Christmas that will give you what you did not ask.
A fair knowledge of the above principle is essential to an understanding of the nature and character of the technicalities of the Common Law in relation to the doctrine of stare decisis. By this principle of stare decisis (meaning; like cases should be decided alike) and in consimili casu consimile debet esse remedium (meaning; in a similar case, the remedy should be similar), the doctrine of judicial precedent evolved. This judicial precedent refers to the bindingness of the earlier decisions on the later cases. Correspondingly, the doctrine of judicial precedent as it now operates in Nigeria is that all other courts in Nigeria are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Therefore any decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Nigeria on any particular issue; the Supreme Court itself and all other courts in Nigeria must follow the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the earlier case on a similar case before them and arrive at the same decision with that of Supreme Court in the earlier case. Until the Supreme Court in Nigeria overrules itself on the issue, its decision represents the state of the law on that particular issue with the greatest validity.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision on duty of the competent court of jurisdiction in fundamental rights enforcement in Jim-Jaja vs. C.O.P., River State (2013) All FWLR (pt.665) is to the effect that where the applicant has established/proved the breach of his/her fundamental right before the court, the award of damages/compensation automatically follows without him/her asking for it. Of course this is an exception to the above stated Common Law principle. This to my mind is not new, as it may be likened to the consequential reliefs as propounded in Amaechi’s case (supra).
For instance, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is explicit on the applicant’s entitlement to compensation in cases where the applicant was unlawfully arrested or detained. The relevant did not however say whether or not it is automatic. The relevant 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.” (italicized for emphasis)
It is however in Jim-Jaja vs. C.O.P (supra) that the Supreme Court held that it is automatic even where the applicant did not specifically ask for the compensation. Fundamental rights enforcement proceedings being sui generis, admit that it is incumbent on the trial judge to award a just amount of compensation once it is established that any of the fundamental right of the applicant was actually violated by the Respondent(s).
The relevant fact of the Jim-Jaja’s case are that the Gabriel Jim-Jaja (hereinafter called the applicant) allegedly borrowed the sum of N1.4 million from one Nelson Douglas (hereinafter called the 3rd respondent), a registered money lender and the applicant deposited a certificate of occupancy as the security for the loan. When the applicant failed to repay the loan, the 3rd respondent in his attempt to convert the security into cash, claimed that the certificate of occupancy was forged. He then wrote a petition to the police as a result of which, the applicant was arrested but was released on bail by the 1st and 2nd respondents on the undertaking to repay the loan. The applicant was subsequently re-arrested and released at the instance of the 3rd respondent. The applicant therefore, applied to the High Court of Rivers State to enforce inter alia his fundamental right under section 35 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
At the High Court, the applicant’s claims were dismissed and he appealed to the Court of Appeal wherein the Court of Appeal held that his right was actually violated by the respondents but he was not entitled to damages (compensation) on the ground that it was not sought for. The applicant being dissatisfied with the holding of the Court of Appeal on the issue of his entitlement to compensation, he further appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court finally held that since it was established that the applicant’s right was violated by the respondents, he is by the operation of law entitled to award of reasonable compensation with a public apology even if not specifically asked.
For the purpose of clarity, the Supreme Court ratio in Jim-Jaja’s case on the automatic nature of the compensation is hereby reproduced ipsissma verba as follow:
“By the provisions of sections 35(1) and 46(2) of 1999 Constitution, a High Court is conferred with special jurisdiction to deal with cases of violation of fundamental right of any person within the borders of this country. Every person is guaranteed his/her personal liberty. Fundamental rights matters are place on a higher pedestal than ordinary civil matters in which a claim for damages resulting from a proven injury has to be made specifically and proved. Once the appellant proved the violation of his fundamental right by the respondents, damages in form of compensation and even apology should have followed. The onus is on him to show that his fundamental right has been violated. If this is proved, the complainant is entitled to compensation and apology, where no specific amount is claimed, it is the court to consider the claim and in its opinion, the amount that would be justified to compensate the victim of the breach. In this respect, the common law principles on the award of damages do not apply to matters brought under the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights procedure. The procedure for the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Right was specifically promulgated to protect Nigerians fundamental rights from abuse and violation by authorities and persons. When breach of the right is proved, the victim is entitled to compensation even if no specific amount is claimed. In the instance case, where the applicant was able to established a breach of his rights, the Court of Appeal erred not granting damages…
From the forgoing, the appellant does not have to ask for compensation once he has established the fact of his being unlawfully detained, a fact which the court below itself held he has. The compensation is automatic by operation of the law. in any event, the record of appeal shown that the appellant has specifically asked for a N2,000,0000,00 (two million naira) damages. The lower court’s decision that discountenance the content of section 35(6) of the Constitution as well as the appellant’s specific claim for award of N2,000,000,00 (two million naira) damages arising from the breach of his constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty is manifestly perverse”
The above-cited ratio of the Supreme Court is very clear. Though cases are authority for what they are decided, this in effect is an authority to the effect that cases of fundamental right enforcement are a special kind. The general rule of award of compensation is relaxed as the applicant is only expected to establish the breach for hi/her to be automatically entitle to a reasonable compensation and apology. It is therefore incumbent on the trial judge to award compensation once he is satisfied that there was a breach, even where the applicant failed or neglected to claim a special amount.
Conclusively, it is of course abudans cautela non docet (abundant or sufficient caution does no harm) for the applicant to specifically claim the amount of compensation he prays the court to award. This in my opinion will make it easy for the court to pronounce on the amount of compensation right from the trial court notwithstanding the law that it is the court that would determine the reasonable amount in the circumstance. This view is also discernable from Jim-Jaja’s case (supra).
Legal Practitioner at Kazeem A. Atitebi & Co., Barristers and Solicitors.
NIALS' Compendia Series: Your One-Stop Solution For Navigating Nigerian Laws (2004-2023)
Email: info@nials.edu.ng, tugomak@yahoo.co.uk, Contact: For Inquiry and information, kindly contact, NIALS Director of Marketing: +2348074128732, +2348100363602.
