The 2 Nigerians are :Tunji Ogunmisi and Alexander Nwanji of  the  Criminal Casework Team at  the  Immigration Directorate.

SUMMARY:

Muuse v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2010] EWCA Civ 453;; [2010] WLR (D) 108

CA: Sir Andrew Morritt C, Thomas LJ, Sir Scott Baker: 27 April 2010


When considering an award of exemplary damages in respect of the oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional conduct of government officials where the conduct complained of was considered by the court to be outrageous, it was not necessary to show further that the outrageous conduct disclosed malice, fraud, insolence, cruelty or the like.
The Court of Appeal so stated in (1) allowing the appeal of the defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from the decision of John Leighton Williams QC [2009] EWHC 1886(QB) that the unlawful detention of the claimant, Abdillaahi Muuse, had arisen from misfeasance in public office by officials of the Home Department and (2) dismissing the Secretary of State’s appeal from the judge’s award of exemplary damages in addition to basic compensatory and aggravated damages in respect of the officials’ “reckless indifference to the probability of causing injury to” the claimant. The claimant was a Dutch national born in Somalia who had been unlawfully detained for 128 days on the orders of immigration officials pending deportation to Somalia in circumstances where there was no right to deport.
THOMAS LJ said that, in order to establish misfeasance in public office, the claimant had to establish that those acting for the defendant Secretary of State had detained him (i) in the knowledge of, or with reckless indifference to, the illegality of their actions; (ii) in the knowledge of, or with reckless indifference to, the probability of causing injury to him. It was common ground that the judge had made the second of those necessary findings. However the defendant contended that the judge had failed to make the first finding . He submitted that in order to establish the tort of misfeasance in public office the judge had to find that the officials acting on the defendant’s behalf had been recklessly indifferent to the legality of their actions. This had to be a finding of subjective, not objective, indifference.
In His Lordship’s view it was clear that the judge had not expressly made that finding although plainly there had been evidence on which he could have reached that conclusion. There could be no doubt that, if such a finding was to be made, the judge should have made it expressly. His Lordship regretted that, as it was not a finding that could be inferred as inevitable from the primary findings made by the judge, he could not conclude that the judge must have made such a finding by necessary implication.
The judge had set out the factors which in his view justified a “significant punitive award”. The defendant accepted that there did not need to be a finding of misfeasance in public office before an award of exemplary damages could be made, as it was common ground that it was “oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government” which were the conditions for such an award: see Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, 1226 per Lord Devlin. The defendant contended that no award should have been made, as an award in respect of such conduct should only be made where the conduct was “outrageous, disclosing malice, fraud, insolence and the like”: see McGregor on Damages 18th ed (2009), para 11–019. His Lordship referred to Holden v Chief Constable of Lancashire [1987] QB 380, 387–388, per Purchas LJ, AB v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB 507, 529 per Sir Thomas Bingham MR and Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2002] AC 122, para 89, per Lord Hutton. The guidance given by Sir Thomas Bingham MR and Lord Hutton was sufficient. There was no need for this to be qualified by further looking for malice, fraud, insolence, cruelty or similar specific conduct. There was no authority that supported Dr McGregor’s view to this effect. There were a number of factors that showed that the unlawful imprisonment of the claimant in this case was not merely unconstitutional but an arbitrary exercise of executive power which was outrageous. It called for an award of exemplary damages by way of punishment, and to deter and to vindicate the strength of the law.
SIR SCOTT BAKER delivered a concurring judgment.
SIR ANDREW MORRITT C, agreeing, said that the circumstances indicated demanded an urgent investigation and action by the Secretary of State.
http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2010/CACiv/Muuse_v_SSHD.html

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/453.html&query=Muuse+and+v+and+Secretary+and+of+and+State+and+for+and+the+and+Home+and+Department&method=boolean

wtf

@ Poster,
Are u ok?

@shotster50

I humbly doubt it

Meaningless