Court Throws Out N100 Million Rights Violation Case Against Police Chief
An Oyo State High Court located in Ibadan has thrown out a fundamental rights enforcement suit seeking N100 million in damages against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and five other parties.
The presiding judge, Justice Semiu Oloyede Oyediran, delivered the judgment on 25 November 2025, declaring the application as incompetent and without merit.
Parties Involved and Core Allegations
The applicants in the suit, marked M/342/2025, were Alhaja Taibatu Yusuff Oje, Alhaji Saheed Adigun, Alhaji Sakirudeen Ige, Alhaji Akeem Arowopoko, Chief Asimiyu Adesokan, Chief Moshood Oladimeji, and Chief Mukaila Lasisi. They filed the case for themselves and their associates.
The respondents named alongside the IGP were Supol Kehinde, Supol A. Jimoh of the Force CID in Alagbon, Lagos; Oba Adetola Emmanuel King; and Adron Homes and Properties Limited.
The applicants had sought court declarations that their rights to human dignity, personal liberty, and property ownership were violated. They claimed this was due to alleged threats of arrest and detention by the police, which were based on a petition filed by the fourth and fifth respondents, Oba Adetola Emmanuel King and Adron Homes.
They also requested an injunction to stop the police from further inviting or arresting them, alongside their demand for N100 million in damages.
Defence Arguments and Police Response
In their defence, the IGP and the two police officers, represented by their counsel Morufu Ajani Animashaun, urged the court to dismiss the suit, labelling it as frivolous. They firmly denied ever detaining the applicants, stating that they were only invited for questioning in response to a formal petition.
Similarly, the fourth and fifth respondents, through their lawyer Ademola Koko, presented a different narrative to the court. They explained that they had legitimately purchased land from various owners, but the applicants later began encroaching on the properties. They accused the applicants of making false ownership claims, fraudulently collecting money from people, and even invading the fifth respondent's land with armed thugs.
They maintained that their petition to the police was solely for a lawful investigation into these matters and not to facilitate any harassment.
Court's Final Ruling and Conclusion
After a thorough review of all the affidavits, counter-affidavits, and exhibits presented, Justice Oyediran held that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove any breach of their fundamental rights.
The judge explicitly refused to grant any of the reliefs sought to enforce the applicants' rights to dignity, liberty, and property.
"I hold that the fundamental rights of the applicants have not been breached as alleged. This action is accordingly dismissed," the court stated.
The court further clarified that the ongoing police investigations, which stem from a land dispute already pending in another court, did not constitute unlawful arrest or detention as claimed by the applicants.
