An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan has awarded N1 million in damages to the Ibadan (Akinyele) Al-Ansar Cooperative Investment and Credit Society Ltd. over the arrest and detention of two of its members in March 2018.
The court also ordered the respondents to publish an apology to the cooperative in a newspaper circulating widely in Oyo State and restrained them from further harassing, intimidating, victimising or arresting the cooperative’s members over the complaint that led to the disputed arrests.
Justice Olayemi Muraina delivered the judgment on July 9, 2026, in Suit No. M/416/2018, filed under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure.
The respondents in the case were Musibau Kasali, Odebiyi Adeniyi and the Commissioner of Police, Oyo State.
How the dispute started
The case arose from a dispute involving an access road leading to land associated with the cooperative.
According to the applicant’s case before the court, some people had excavated sand from the access road and adjoining areas, allegedly causing damage to the road.
The cooperative said it reported the matter to the Town Planning Authority, which subsequently issued a stop-work notice. The matter was also reported to the police and to the family of the first respondent.
The applicant alleged that the first respondent had sold sand excavated from the access road for N100,000, after which people involved in the excavation were arrested and charged to court.
The first respondent subsequently lodged a complaint of threat to life and land grabbing against members of the cooperative.
It was in connection with that complaint that two members of the cooperative, Abdul Rasheed Oyelakin and Ustaz Fadilullahi Oladeji, were arrested.
Members arrested and detained
The applicant told the court that Oyelakin and Oladeji were arrested on March 7, 2018 and detained by the police.
The evidence before the court showed that they were arrested at about 11am on March 7 and subsequently taken to the MRS Police Station at Dugbe, Ibadan.
They were later transferred to the Monitoring Unit at the Eleyele Police Headquarters on March 8 and released at about 5pm, after they were made to pay N30,000 for bail.
The applicant challenged the constitutionality of the arrest and detention, arguing that the conduct violated the members’ fundamental rights.
Court rejects respondents’ justification
The respondents defended the arrest, arguing that the first respondent had the right as a citizen to report a suspected criminal offence to the police.
Their position was that the complaint against the cooperative members did not amount to a violation of their fundamental rights.
The respondents also argued that the constitutional right to personal liberty was not absolute and that the police had powers under the law to arrest and detain suspects.
The court, however, found that the respondents had failed to provide sufficient justification for the continued detention of the cooperative members.
Justice Muraina considered the circumstances surrounding the arrests and the evidence concerning the period for which the two men remained in police custody.
Judge questions circumstances surrounding complaint
One of the significant aspects of the judgment was the court’s consideration of the circumstances in which the complaint against the cooperative members was made.
The court noted that the first respondent had complained to the police about the cooperative members, but the evidence did not sufficiently establish the circumstances of the alleged threat to his life.
The judgment also considered the sequence of events: the dispute over the access road, the complaint about the alleged excavation of sand, the subsequent arrest of persons connected with the excavation and the later complaint against the cooperative members.
The court ultimately rejected the respondents’ attempt to use the land dispute to defeat the fundamental rights application, holding that the reliefs being sought by the applicant did not require the court to determine ownership of the disputed land.
Detention found to have violated constitutional rights
The court’s determination centred substantially on the constitutional protection of personal liberty.
Justice Muraina considered the period during which the cooperative members were detained and the failure of the respondents to adequately explain why they were not brought before a court within the constitutionally prescribed period.
The judgment states that the two men were arrested at about 11am on March 7, 2018, and remained in custody until about 5pm on March 8.
The court observed that the police had not explained why the men could not have been taken before a Magistrate Court or High Court in Ibadan within the relevant period.
The court consequently found that the detention violated the applicants’ constitutional right to personal liberty.
Court awards N1m damages
The cooperative had sought N5 million in general and aggravated damages.
However, the court awarded N1 million.
Justice Muraina held that the applicant had established grounds for the reliefs sought in relation to the arrest, detention and subsequent conduct complained of.
The court specifically stated that it found merit in the application and granted reliefs 1, 3, 4 and 5.
The first relief concerned the alleged violation of the members’ fundamental rights through their arrest and detention.
The third relief sought protection against further harassment or arrest, while the fourth involved monetary compensation. The fifth relief sought an apology.
Court orders newspaper apology
In addition to the monetary award, the court ordered the respondents to publish an apology to the applicant in a newspaper widely circulating in Oyo State.
The court also issued a restraining order against further victimisation, harassment, intimidation or arrest of the cooperative’s members in connection with the complaint that formed the subject of the case.
The judgment further records that the respondents had no legal representation when the matter was determined, while Ademola Yakubu Fadare appeared for the applicant.
The court made no order as to costs.
What the Oyo court judgment means
The judgment underscores the distinction between the right of a citizen to make a criminal complaint and the responsibility of law-enforcement authorities to ensure that an arrest and subsequent detention comply with constitutional safeguards.
While the court recognised that citizens may report suspected criminal conduct to the police, the circumstances surrounding an arrest and the length of detention remain subject to constitutional requirements.
In this case, the court found that the respondents had not sufficiently justified the detention of the two cooperative members and consequently granted four of the five principal reliefs sought by the applicant.
The case is therefore significant not only because of the N1 million damages award, but also because of the court’s findings concerning the constitutional right to personal liberty and the limits of police detention in the context of a dispute involving private parties.
