Lawyer Drags Anambra State Road Traffic Management Agency, Officials To Court Over Alleged Wrongful Vehicle Impounding And Fine

*Says He Was Not Giving Fair Hearing, And His Offence Is Unknown To Law

An Awka-based lawyer Ndubuisi Dandy Agu, has dragged Anambra state Road Traffic Management Agency (ARTMA) to court for and its employees Emeka Okonkwo (Konti), who is the Managing Director and Iruogu Emmanuel for alleged wrongful impounding of his car and imposing N50,000 fine on him without fair hearing.

In the SUIT NO.A/324/2022, filed through his counsel, S.T Omeh, Esq, the Claimant is seeking seven reliefs, including a declaration that the Defendants cannot legally and competently impose a fine of N50,000, on him for an offence that is not known to law. 

The reliefs sought are:
A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that by the combined legal effect of the construction, interpretation and application of the provisions of Sections  1(1) (3), 6(6), 36(1) (2) (a) & (b), (3) (4) of the Constitution of  the Federal  Republic of  Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Sections 10 and 11 of the Anambra State Traffic Management Agency Law 2011 (as amended), the defendants cannot legally and competently impose a fine of N50,000 (Fifty Thousand Naira) only or any fine at all on the plaintiff as punishment or penalty for alleged traffic offences of ‘road obstruction’ and ‘route violation’ allegedly committed by the plaintiff without affording the plaintiff a fair hearing before a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that by the combined legal effect of the construction, interpretation and application of  Sections 1 (1) (3), 6(6), 36(6) (1) (2) (a) & (b) (4) (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Sections 10 and 11 of the Anambra State  Traffic Management Agency Law 2011(as amended) or any bye-law or regulation made thereto, the defendants cannot legally try, convict, sentence and impose any fine or penalty on the plaintiff for alleged traffic offences which is not defined in any Law and the punishment of which is not prescribed in any written  Law, bye law or regulation.

A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that upon a proper construction, interpretation and application of Sections 1(1), (3), 6(6), 36(6) (1) (2) (a) (b), (3) (4) (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Sections 10 and 11 of the Anambra State Traffic Management Agency Law 2011 (as amended) or any bye law or regulation made thereto,  there is no offence created by the Anambra State Traffic Management Agency Law 2011(as amended) known as “Road obstruction’ and ‘Route Violation” punishable with the imposition of fine by the defendants without a trial by a Court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction and without affording the plaintiff a fair hearing.

A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that upon a proper construction, interpretation and application of the provisions of Sections 1 (1)(3), 6(6), 36 (1) (2) (a) & (b), (3), (4) (12) of the Constitution of the  Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Sections 10 and 11 of the Anambra State Road Traffic Management Agency Law 2011 (as amended), the 1st defendant as a management agency of the Anambra State Government does not have inherent powers in itself or from the provisions of the enabling law to hold a person guilty of an alleged traffic offence and impose a fine or  penalty without proper adjudication by a court or tribunal of competent  jurisdiction.

A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that upon a proper construction, interpretation and application of Section 4(6) & (7), Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal  Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Sections 9, 10,11,12 and 14 of the Anambra State Traffic Management Agency Law 2011 (as amended) or any bye law or regulation made thereto, the 1st defendant cannot lawfully and legally designate any expressway, road, street and  lanes in the State as “One way” and thereby create a fictitious offence called “One way  driving” or ‘route violation’ or “road obstruction” which enables the 1st defendant to impose a fine or penalty on the plaintiff for the said imaginary offence without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard.

The plaintiff is asking the court to mandate the defendants jointly and severally to refund to him the sum of N50, 000 which the defendants illegally imposed on him as fine or penalty for a non-existent traffic coffences of “Road obstruction” and ‘Route violation” allegedly committed by him without affording him fair hearing as provided by section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). He also wants the Court to declare null and void and of no effect the provisions of Sections 10(c) and 11(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Anambra State Traffic Management Agency Law 2011 (as amended) for being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

“AN ORDER of the Honourable Court nullifying and setting aside that part of the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Anambra State Road Traffic Management Agency Law 2011(as amended) which provides that no writ of execution or attachment or other processesin the nature of any such writ shall issue against the 1st defendant for being inconsistent with the provisions of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Cap. S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents, assigns, privies or howsoever constituted from impounding or attempt to impound the plaintiff’s vehicle and or imposing a fine or penalty on the plaintiff for a non-existent traffic offence of “road obstruction” and “route violation” without giving the plaintiff a fair hearing before a tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction.