Execution of Courts Order Cannot Amount to Breach of Fundamental Human Rights
The Dubai Valour, a vessel, with Ukrainian crew members was ordered to be arrested by the Court in an action initiated by Lonestar Drilling Company Ltd. But no order was given to arrest its crew members. Nevertheless, they remained in the vessel for a prolonged period after which some members became gravely ill. A subsequent fundamental rights action filed by them was dismissed both at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court who found the Respondents not liable for the conditions of the Appellants. Facts In August 1997, The Dubai Valour, a vessel, was arrested at the jetty in Sapele and placed in the Admiral Marshal’s custody. The arrest of the vessel was ordered by the Federal High Court, Benin in an admiralty action initiated by Lonestar Drilling Co. Ltd (“the 1st Respondent”) against 4 persons and the vessel. The 1st Respondent had sought for the vessel’s arrest after claiming N1, 430, 000, 000 for breach of a contract of affreightment (a binding agreement between a vessel owner and merchant whereby the former agrees to provide cargo space for a fee).
The ship owners later undertook to pay US$1 Million. This led to an order releasing the vessel. The Respondents were however desirous of preventing the ship from sailing. Thus, they enlisted the help of the Nigerian Navy to bring the vessel back to Nigerian waters. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent obtained another court order which enabled it move the vessel to its private jetty. The Appellants were part of the crew members who were not parties to the 1st Respondent’s suit. They alleged that they were unlawfully detained in the vessel without food, water, bunkers, and medical supplies. They also alleged that their international passports and seamen’s books were seized under the pretext of revalidating them in Lagos.
Several crew members fell ill and variously had to be treated in local hospital. This made the ship owners apply to the court to evacuate the crew. Their application was refused by the trial court on the basis that there was no order detaining the crew members, thus there could be no order to evacuate them. Their conditions deteriorated as the vessel’s Protective Agent responsible for supplying necessaries were alleged to be denied access to the vessel by the Respondents.
On 27 January 1998, the Appellants initiated a fundamental rights enforcement suit at the Federal High Court, Lagos against the Attorney General of the Federation, Comptroller General of Immigrations, Minister of Internal Affairs and the Respondents. In the suit, they prayed for: the enforcement of their fundamental human rights to personal freedom and liberty; release of their passports and seamen’s books; supply of bunkers, fresh water, provision and medicare; return to their country unhindered; and damages of Five Million US Dollars for their illegal detention.
The learned trial judge held that the Nigerian Immigration service were responsible for the Appellants’ detention by impounding their passports and other travel documents. Thereafter the court granted the Appellants prayers for breach of their fundamental rights against the three Federal entities and the Respondents. He however awarded no compensation in their favour. The Respondents appealed against the judgment while the Appellants cross-appealed against the refusal to award compensation.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross appeal. In allowing the appeal, the court held that the Appellants’ detention was in accordance with the Court’s order. This made the Appellants further appeal to the Supreme Court (“the Court”).
In the appeal, the Appellant wanted the Court to determine whether the Court of Appeal rightly absolved the Respondents for breach of their fundamental human rights.
The Appellants argued that the lower court overlooked certain letters, emails and fax messages it presented as evidence which pointed to the Respondent’s culpability. It was also argued that the Respondents clearly intended to secure exclusive control of the vessel and crew by filing an application to shift the vessel to the Respondents’ backyard and positioning drilling platforms in front of and behind the vessel. Going further, the Appellants referred to certain invoices for the supply of water, food and other necessities to establish that out of the total period they spent inside the vessel, they were supplied with necessities for only eight months.
In reply, the Respondents submitted that from the Appellants’ arguments, it could be deduced that it was the alleged seizure of the Appellants’ travel documents that prevented them from disembarking from the vessel and constituted the unlawful detention. The Respondents further submitted that there could be no valid finding of denial of food, water, bunkers, etc. without proving that they owed the Appellants the duty to provide them. Moreover, the invoices tendered by the Appellants were used by the Respondents to establish that the vessel received supplies contrary to the Appellants’ allegations.
Additionally, the Respondents pointed out that it was the actions of the Minister for Internal Affairs and the Immigration Authority that constituted the breach of the Respondents rights, which the lower court rightly narrowed down.
In resolving the above issue, the Court examined the initial complaint brought by the Appellants before the trial court. Thereafter, the Court narrowed the main issues into two. Firstly was the question of who was responsible for the Appellants’ detention, and secondly was whether the Appellants were denied access to food, water, bunkers, etc. Significantly, the court noted that the seizure of the Appellants’ travel documents was the basis for alleging their fundamental rights had been breached. The court also found that the trial court had earlier determined that it was the Comptroller of Immigration and Minister of Internal Affairs that impounded the Appellants’ travel documents. Thus, the Court found no basis upon which the trial court held the Respondents liable for breaching the Appellants’ fundamental human rights.
The Court further considered the invoices for supplies to the vessel as debunking the claim that essential items needed for survival on the vessel were not allowed into the vessel during the period of the arrest. Moreover, the Appellants were found to have not stated the specific period they were refused supplies apart from that found in the invoices.
Flowing from the following finding of the Court, this appeal was dismissed. Counsel: For the Appellants: Ayo Olorunfemi, with O. Yusuf For the Respondents: N.I. Ntiaidem (Miss) Reported by Modupe O. Otoide; Aluko & Oyebode, Lagos