On Tuesday, a Lagos-based lawyer, Mr Ogedi Ogu, prayed to a Federal High Court in Lagos to issue an order restraining the police from further arresting and detaining his client, Mr Vincent Uba, over tenancy matters.
The Administrator General and Public Trustee of Oyo State, the Assistant Inspector-General of Police Zone II, Onikan, Lagos, and CSP Uba Adams are joined as respondents in the suit.
Also joined are the Officer in Charge of the Zonal Oracle Unit, SP Dahiru Ango, Investigating Police Officer, and Insp. Jonas Jatau, the Police Service Commission and a company Vivastar Nig. Ltd.
The applicant (Uba) urged the court to issue an order declaring that his arrest and detention by the second to fifth respondent on May 28 over tenancy issues was unconstitutional.
He wants the court to declare that the respondents’ arrest and detention of him over his tenancy at No. 5 Association Ave. Illupeju, Lagos, by alleged instigation of the first and eighth respondents, was illegal.
The applicant wants the court to declare that the blockage of the entrance and exit to his premises with sharp sand and granite is an infringement on his right to freedom of movement and the dignity of the human person.
He. averred that denying his rights to enter and exit while still occupying his flat as a tenant and without any opportunity to be heard by any court or tribunal is a breach of his rights and, therefore, unlawful.
The applicant is claiming N50 million against the respondents jointly and severally as damages for a breach of his rights to fair hearing, freedom of movement, and dignity of a human person.
In an affidavit in support of his suit, the applicant avers that he has been in lawful possession and occupation of a three-bedroom flat as a tenant in the said property since 2015.
He avers that he was invited to the police station on May 26 after the fourth respondent called him.
He pleaded for a convenient date to report at the station, but after his plea was refused, he contacted his lawyer, who further intervened until he was given May 28 to appear.
He said that on arriving at the station on May 28, he was shown a petition written by the first and eighth respondents, informing him that the first respondent had sold the property he occupied as a tenant to the eighth respondent.
According to the applicant, the notice came to him as a shock, and he informed the police that the eighth respondent was not known to him since no notice had been given to him or any other tenant in the property.
He averted that the fourth respondent immediately warned him not to utter such words again after he insisted that the police station was not the appropriate place to pass such information to tenants.
The applicant said the fourth respondent immediately ordered the fifth respondent to fill out a detention form and detain the applicant until he was ready to cooperate.
According to him, he was then taken before the third respondent, who inquired why he had not vacated the premises. He added that when he responded that he required adequate time, he was shouted down.
He averred that he was finally allowed out on bail the same day but later returned to the station on June 3, as directed, when he was handed over an already prepared document and ordered to sign it.
He said that upon refusing to sign, the third respondent threatened and promised him that he would be thrown out of the property.
According to the applicant, his lawyer was also harassed and bullied by the fourth respondent after he asked if the document was a court order or a notice to quit.
The applicant averred that he is going through unimaginable times with his family following the respondents’ blockage of his property.
Therefore, he urges the court to grant all his reliefs as sought.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.
