News Investigators/ A Lagos-based lawyer, Ogedi Ogu, on Tuesday prayed 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.
Joined as respondents in the suit are the Administrator General and Public Trustee Oyo State, The Assistant Inspector-General of Police Zone II, Onikan Lagos, and CSP Uba Adams.
Also joined are the Officer in Charge Zonal Oracle Unit, SP Dahiru Ango, Investigating Police Officer, 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, is unconstitutional.
He wants the court to declare that his arrest and detention by the respondents, over his tenancy at No. 5, Association Ave. Illupeju, Lagos, by alleged instigation of the first and eighth respondents, is illegal.
The applicant wants the court to declare that the blockage of the entrance and exit to his premises wiith sharp sand and granite, is an infringement on his right to freedom of movement, and dignity of human person.
He. averred that the denial of his rights to enter and exit while still in occupation of 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 breach of his rights to fair hearing, freedom of movement and dignity of 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, through a call from the fourth respondent.
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 eight respondents, informing him that the property he occupies as a tenant, had been sold by the first respondent to the eight respondent.
According to the applicant, the notice came to him as a shock and he informed the police that the eigth 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 across to tenants.
The applicant said that the fourth respondent immediately ordered the fifth respondent to fill a detention form and detain the applicant until he is ready to cooperate.
According to him, he was then taken before the third respondent, who enquired why he had not vacated the premises, adding that when he responded that he required adequate time, he was shouted down.
He averred that he was finally allowed out on bail same day, but later returned to the station on June 3, as directed, when was handed over an already prepared document ordered to sign same.
He said that upon his refusal to sign, he was threatened and promised by the third respondent, 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 a blockage into his property by the respondents.
He, is therefore, urging the court to grant all his reliefs as sought.
No date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.
NAN
