Seventy-seven people who sued the Lagos State government over alleged infringement of fundamental human rights and unlawful deportation to Onitsha have lost demand for N2 billion in damages.
Justice Musa Kurya of the Lagos Federal High Court ruled in favour of the state government on Friday, December 5.
The applicants – represented by Rosemary Nathaniel, Friday Ndukwe, Grace Igbochi, Ugulori Tutua, Chinyere Nicholas, and Osondu Mbuto – filed the suit on behalf of the 77, seeking enforcement of their rights.
Kurya held that there were conflicts in the affidavit evidence tendered by both parties, which ought to be resolved by oral evidence.
He noted that efforts were made to serve the respondents with the court processes, and the proof of service showed that they were duly served but were not represented in court.
“The respondent’s case is a complete denial of the facts and circumstances as put forward by the applicants. The respondents said in their affidavit that they did not deport the applicants to any place outside the territory of Lagos State at any time,” the judge ruled.
“They said in furtherance of state government’s policy to cater for the welfare of citizens irrespective of their origin, the applicants were rescued from different parts of state while they were begging for arms, and engaging in other vices.
“The respondents said those who could not provide details of their places of residence or business were taken to a rehabilitation centre at Majidun, and given opportunity to acquire vocational skills.
“They said it was three months after that their home state contacted the respondents, and the applicants who had successfully completed their programme indicated their intention to rejoin their families.
“The respondents decided to assist the applicants in getting back to their families.
“It is trite law that where there are conflicts in affidavit evidence, it is normally resolved by oral evidence and applicants’ counsel did not call for such oral evidence.
“The court was therefore left with no option but to decide the matter on available evidence.
“I do not find any substance in the case of the applicants; there seems to be truth in the respondent’s averment.
“Consequently, judgment is entered in favour of the respondents against the applicants, with no cost awarded to either party. This is my judgment.”
