The Nigerian Navy and Harry Arogundade, a rear admiral, have filed an appeal before a court in Lagos over the judgment of a Lagos High Court in the case brought against them by Uzoma Okere and Abdullahi Abdulazeez for assault.
The High Court in Igbosere had on January 27, ruled that the applicants should pay the sum of N100 million, amongst other reliefs, to Ms. Okere and Mr. Abdulazeez.
Justice Opeyemi Oke had on January 27, 2010 delivered a judgment in the matter instituted by Ms. Okere and Mr. Abdulazeez against the respondents – the Navy, Mr. Arogundade and four naval ratings – for violating their fundamental human rights. The applicants had asked the respondents to pay the sum of N100 million as damages.
Appeal
However, not satisfied with the court judgment, the Navy and Mr. Arogundade have filed an appeal through their counsel, Lawrence Imolode.
They also joined the four naval ratings; CI Jeremiah, SA Kenigua, SA Bullem and Lieutenant Okoloagu, who never appeared in the substantive suit as co-respondent.
In the notice of appeal, the applicants contended that the award of general damages in the sum of N100 million jointly and severally in favour of Ms. Okere and Mr. Abdulazeez, alongside other declarative reliefs is “sentimental, excessive, and manifestly unsupportable in law in the face of the evidence available to the court.”
They said the lower court premised the grant of the reliefs sought by the applicants on emotional consideration and not on any judicial authority.
Also in the notice, the appellants held that the trial judge erred when it refused to allow the applicants cross-examine Ms. Okere with regards to the event that happened on November 3, 2009, in which Ms. Uzoma was beaten, stripped naked and detained unlawfully.
They stated that if the court had allowed them to cross-examine Ms. Okere, it would have seen that Mr. Arogundade was not at the scene of the incident and that the four naval ratings were acting in aid of civil authority pursuant to Section 239 Armed Forces Act, CAP20 LFN 2004.
In addition they argued that there was no evidence before the court to show that Mr. Arogundade directed, authorised or ratified the conduct of the naval ratings.
A date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the appeal.


Reader Comments (53)
post a comment
* = Required information