The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on December 4, 2025, upheld a Federal High Court ruling, declaring the impoundment of a lawyer’s vehicle by the Directorate of Road Traffic Services (VIO) in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) unlawful. The judgment stems from a case filed by Mr. Marshal Abubakar, Esq., whose red Toyota Corolla (registration YAB 435 DN) was seized by VIO officers on December 12, 2023, despite presenting valid vehicle papers and a driver’s license.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
The respondent was stopped while using a spare tire (with a new replacement tire in the trunk) and presented his vehicle papers and driver’s license. Despite this, the officers detained him for over an hour, and upon the arrival of the 3rd appellant (Mr. Leo, Area Commander), the vehicle was ordered to be taken to the VIO office without hearing the respondent’s side. The impoundment occurred without allowing the respondent to retrieve personal items, including N500,000 cash, an iPad, a bag of rice, a power bank, rechargeable lamps, and a new tire.
The respondent filed an originating motion at the Federal High Court for enforcement of his fundamental human rights, alleging unlawful detention, assault, and detinue. The trial court granted all his reliefs, declaring the appellants’ actions unlawful and awarding damages.
Aggrieved, the appellants (VIO, its Director, Mr. Leo, Onoja Solomon, and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory) appealed on 10 grounds, distilling six issues:
- Whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction, as the FCT is treated as a state under Sections 251(1), 299, 301, and 302 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and the parties are not federal agencies.
- Whether the 1st and 2nd appellants (VIO and its Director) are non-juristic persons, rendering the proceedings a nullity.
- Whether the 3rd and 4th appellants (individual officers) were proper parties, as agents of the undisclosed FCT Administration.
- Whether laws exist in the FCT empowering VIO to stop, impound, or fine vehicles.
- Whether the FCT Minister has the power to make road traffic regulations.
- Whether the trial court properly evaluated affidavit evidence before granting reliefs.
The respondent cross-appealed on two grounds, challenging the admissibility of the appellants’ counter-affidavit as hearsay under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
The Court of Appeal, in a lead judgment by Hon. Justice Oyejoju Oyebiola Oyewumi (concurred by Hon. Justices Adebukunola Adeoti Banjoko and Okon Efreti Abang), addressed the issues as follows:
- Jurisdiction (Issue 1): The court held that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction, as the suit involved fundamental rights enforcement under Chapter IV of the Constitution, not limited by subject matter or party status. The FCT’s state-like status did not divest jurisdiction, and the claims were not merely tortious but rooted in rights violations.
- Juristic Personality (Issue 2): VIO and its Director were deemed non-juristic (as departments of the FCT Administration), but this was a curable irregularity, not fatal. The court could strike out non-juristic parties without nullifying the suit.
- Proper Parties (Issue 3): The individual officers were proper parties, as disclosed agents liable for their actions. The FCT Administration’s absence did not render the suit incompetent.
- Powers to Impound/Fine (Issue 4): No laws or statutes in the FCT empower VIO to impound vehicles or impose fines on roads. The actions were ultra vires.
- Minister’s Powers (Issue 5): The FCT Minister lacks vires to make such regulations without enabling legislation.
- Evaluation of Evidence (Issue 6): The trial court properly evaluated affidavits. The appellants’ counter-affidavit was self-contradictory and did not warrant oral evidence, as key facts (e.g., no offense committed) were uncontroverted.
The main appeal was found meritless and dismissed, affirming the trial court’s judgment. Costs of N1,000,000 were awarded to the respondent.
The cross-appeal challenged the counter-affidavit’s admissibility (deposed by Attah Sunday Thankgod based on information from Barr. Samuel Baba). The court held it compliant with Section 115 of the Evidence Act, as the deponent disclosed the source (a counsel in the FCT legal unit conversant with the facts), which was uncontroverted. No further affidavit was needed, and failure to file one was not fatal. The cross-appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Federal High Court’s ruling that the appellants’ impoundment was unlawful, violating the respondent’s rights to dignity, movement, and property. VIO lacks statutory powers to impound vehicles or impose fines in the FCT. Both the main appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.
To access the full details, download a copy of the judgment from the link: “COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT On VIO”
A timely new publication, Casebook on Privacy & Data Protection in Nigeria, co-authored by Olumide Babalola and Uchenna Nnawuchi, 📘Casebook on Privacy & Data Protection in Nigeria is now available on Amazon: https://a.co/d/8TmFZrd
_______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers: A Comprehensive Guide”, authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACiarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
