This article examines the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/LAG/CV/1023/2023, which offers a comprehensive analysis of the application of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 (FREP Rules) that the right to property and compensation thereto is an enforceable right under the FREP Rules and highlights how claims for fundamental rights enforcement must be clearly distinguished from ownership or compensatory claims arising from compulsory acquisition or demolition. The judgment also delves into the requirements for garnishee proceedings, particularly regarding the Attorney General's consent, and the circumstances where such consent may not be required.Background Facts of the CaseThe Respondent claimed ownership of land in Lagos State that was compulsorily acquired and demolished by the Governor of Lagos State and the Attorney General of Lagos State (Appellants). The Respondent Aggrieved by the acquisition and demolition, sought redress at the Federal High Court (Lower court), citing violations of her fundamental rights and demanding compensation. The Appellants challenged the Federal High Court's jurisdiction and sought to set aside prior judgments. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court.&nbsp;Key Legal IssuesThe appeal centered on the following key legal issues:<ul><li>Proper Application of FREP Rules</li><li>Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court</li><li>Compulsory Acquisition and Compensation</li><li>Garnishee Proceedings and the Attorney General's Consent</li></ul>AnalysisThe Court of Appeal’s decision provides valuable insights into these critical areas of Nigerian law.<ul><li>FREP Rules: The Court of Appeal unequivocally affirmed that the FREP Rules are exclusively meant for the enforcement of rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution. It emphasized that such applications must be based on the direct breach of fundamental rights—not as an appendage to disputes over land or compensation. In support, the Court cited Nwachukwu v. Nwachukwu &amp; Anor (2018) LPELR-44696(SC), reiterating that the principal relief must be the enforcement of a constitutional right, not a claim for land ownership or monetary compensation.</li><li>Jurisdiction: In line with settled law, the Court of Appeal affirmed the principle that jurisdiction is determined by the originating process, and not by the processes filed by the defence. This principle is rooted in the Latin maxim “nemo judex in causa sua”&nbsp;(no one should be a judge in his own case) and is a well-established principle in Nigerian legal jurisprudence.</li><li>Compulsory Acquisition: The Court acknowledged the constitutional protection afforded to property. which highlights the constitutional safeguards surrounding property rights and compulsory acquisition, as provided in Section 44 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended). It also emphasizes the need for meticulous documentation and valuation in claims for compensation, aligning with the principles governing special damages as enunciated in cases like NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd (2011) LPELR-2022(SC).</li><li>Garnishee Proceedings and the Attorney General's Consent: The Court of Appeal also considered the requirement for the Attorney General's consent in garnishee proceedings, as stipulated in Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Procedure Act. The Act stipulates that:</li></ul>“Where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody of a public officer in his official capacity or in the custody of a Court, no order of attachment shall be made unless the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation or of the State, as the case may be, has been obtained.”It must be understood that, while Section 84(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Procedure Act generally mandates the Attorney General's consent before a garnishee order can be made against public funds, The Courts have established exceptions on when the consent of the Attorney General is not required in the following circumstances:<ol><li>Where the Money is in a Commercial Bank: When the judgment debtor's funds are domiciled in a commercial bank, as opposed to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the consent of the Attorney General is not a prerequisite for garnishee proceedings. This exception is based on the principle that funds in commercial banks are not strictly public funds. See CBN v. Interstella Communications Ltd (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 343.</li><li>Enforcement of judgment against a government agency or corporation: The consent of the Attorney General is not required to enforce judgments against government agencies or corporations that are established for commercial purposes and have funds in commercial banks. See Millenium Union Bank Ltd v. Government of Ekiti State (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 271.</li><li>Judgment debt is tied to a specific project: Where the judgment debt for which garnishee proceedings are commenced is tied to a specific project for which funds have been appropriated and are in a commercial bank, the consent of the Attorney General is not needed.</li></ol>This case, CA/LAG/CV/1023/2023, serves as a reminder of the following critical points for legal practitioners:<ol><li>Proper Frame of Claims:&nbsp;Legal practitioners must properly frame FREP applications and separate constitutional claims from civil disputes.</li><li>Jurisdiction: Litigants and Legal Practitioners must carefully consider the jurisdiction of the court, as&nbsp;procedural shortcuts may collapse claims.</li><li>Proof of Special Damages: Claims for special damages, such as compensation in compulsory acquisition cases, require strict proof.</li><li>Garnishee Proceedings: The specific circumstances of the debt and the nature of the funds are crucial in determining the necessity of the Attorney General's consent.</li></ol>ConclusionThe Court of Appeal’s judgment in CA/LAG/CV/1023/2023 is both timely and authoritative. It reaffirms that while fundamental rights enforcement is critical, im must not be misapplied and it further reinforces the rule that FREP claims must be standalone. It also clarifies the limits of garnishee orders involving public funds and the nuanced application of jurisdiction. I believe the case is a landmark guide for interpreting FREP Rules in property related rights violations and should be studied by all legal practitioners engaging with land law and constitutional rights.

Beyond Title: The applicability of Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules (FREP) in Land Disputes in Nigeria. (Gov of Lagos State &amp; A.G Lagos State and Mrs. Unice Ibeabuchukwu Nwosu) Case Study

Beyond Title: The applicability of Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules (FREP) in Land Disputes in Nigeria. (Gov of Lagos State & A.G Lagos State and Mrs. Unice Ibeabuchukwu Nwosu) Case Study

Share on social media