Uzoma Okere


Navy appeals judgment on Uzoma Okere

By Odunayo Abiodun


February 9, 2010 01:30AM
print email





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.


http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5524072-146/navy_appeals_judgment_on_uzoma_okere.csp

wetin dem wan talk?

“sentimental, excessive, and manifestly unsupportable in law in the face of the evidence available to the court.”

I don't know about appeal rules in Nigeria, but where I live, this may be a ground for appeal. However, the appellants will have to point to specific rules in the Nigerian civil code that the trial judge sidestepped. They can also cite precedent to support their claim that the trial judge erred in her ruling. If the appellate court concurs, it will uphold their appeal, but only on the monetary award.


"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 unclothed 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.

The basis that the trial judge erred in disallowing cross examination of the plaintiff is an aspect of Nigerian law I know nothing about. The only instance I know in which Ms.Okere could not be compelled to take the witness stand is if she were a defendant in a criminal trial.  So this is an interesting point the appellants are raising, if they can back it up in law.

However the story about Adm. Arogundade not being at the scene of the assault seems to be a manufactured one. There has to be a few witnesses who can attest that they saw the Admiral at the scene on that day. Other records such as the Admiral's itinerary and movements on that day will be sufficient to establish prima facie that the admiral was at the scene. I believe this is all Okere has to show. The burden then shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut Okere's evidence. At any rate I think this particular claim of theirs s a loser.


"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."

This one, too, is a loser. The court has held that an employer (the Nigerian Navy) can be held liable for the actions of its employee, if those actions occurred in the regular discharge of the employee’s duties.


To any Nigerian-based attorney who might read this, I have a question about the judgment granted Ms Okere and her co-plaintiff:

1) Was there a reason the N100m judgment was for general damages only and why was there no punitive award entered in the judgment?


To anyone who can answer this:

2) The reports listed four naval ratings as defendants, one of whom was listed as a Lieutenant. Why would a naval officer -- a Lieutenant -- be referred to as a naval rating in Nigeria? Usually, a naval rating is an enlisted man or woman with special skills.

--------------------------   

Postscript:

After reading a bit further into this incident, I am not certain that the Admiral was at the scene. If anyone knows that he was certainly present, please post to correct me. If he was not at the scene and did not give the order to assault Ms. Okere, then his appeal (and only his) may be on solid ground. The news reports are a bit murky and sparse on details.

I pray the Appeal Court would increase the award to #150million to teach them a hard lesson.

^^You wish!