Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal held yesterday that Regulation 2012 of the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) under which the new plate number directive was issued was constitutional.
The verdict of the appellate court has said aside the trial court’s decision that the said regulation was illegal and unconstitutional.
Following the FRSC directive that vehicles would be impounded from October 1, last year should their owners fail to acquire the new number plates, a lawyer, Emmanuel Ofoegbu sued the commission before Justice John Tsoho of a Federal High Court.
In a verdict delivered on March 26, the trial court held that the FRSC’s introduction of mandatory new number plate was illegal and the threat to impound vehicles unconstitutional.
Tsoho had held that although the Commission had statutory powers and responsibilities, it was overreaching itself by its proposed action, since there was no penal law under which same could be executed.
The judge had held that the FRSC could not force upon Nigerians, a hastily conceived policy, without an enabling legal framework, adding that nothing had invalidated the old number plates.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the FRSC had approached the appellate court, seeking an order, upturning Tsoho’s verdict raising four issues for determination
FRSC urged the appellate court to decide whether the trial court was right to hold that the National Road Traffic Regulation (NRTR) 2012 was a nastily conceived policy without legal framework, just as it queried the locus standi of the respondent to initiate the suit.
But in its judgement delivered by Justice Shagbor Ikeigh, the Appeal Court held that the respondent have rights to institute the suit being an affected party.
Although the court ruled that Regulation 2012 was unconstitutional and FRSC has powers to give directives, it however decided three of the four issues raised in favour of the respondent.
It held that by the provisions of Section 5 of the FRSC Act 2007, the National Assembly had delegated the authority to the Commission to so act.
On the issue of validity of the regulations 2012, the court held “The effect of regulations 230 (2) of the regulation 2012, preserves the NRTR 2004.
“Its effect is that all acts done under the 2004 regulation, would remain valid until the time frame expires.
“The respondent having a valid plate number before the commencement of the litigation, and with the coming into force of the regulations 2012 delayed by the appellant from August 13, 2012 to October 1, 2013, the said number plate was valid up to its expiry date on March 17, 2014.”
“Consequently, the repeal of the 2004 regulations did not affect the validity of the number plate of the respondent vehicle vide regulations 230 (2) of regulations 2012, read with section 4(2) and 6 of the interpretation Act.
“The lower court was therefore right, in issuing an injunction to protect the respondent’s right to enjoyment of the number plate issued on March 18, 2013, to expire on March 17, 2014.
“I would allow this appeal in part; for the avoidance of doubt, this appeal only succeeds in part to the effect that regulations 2012 has legal force, and is enforceable from October 1, 2013, the administrative date set by FRSC.
“The part of the decision of the lower court declaring the regulation 2012 unconstitutional is hereby set aside” ikegh held.
On the issue of fear of impounding the respondent vehicle, the ?appellate court held that Section 35(1) of the constitution makes the personal liberty of a person an issue of Fundamental Human Right.
“The application of the respondent was brought to protect his personal right to liberty and protection of his movable property, therefore, the appellant has no legal framework to enforce regulation 2012 as it relates to impounding the respondent’s vehicle.
“The respondent would have the standing to sue to enforce his rights.
“I find no substance in the argument that the respondent lacked the locus to have brought the action at the lower court; he has the locus standing to bring the action as rightly held by the said court,”? the court held.
On the issue of reliance on newspaper publications, the appellate court held that although the trial court was in error to have relied on same without the reaction of the appellant, there was however, evidence in the form of affidavit in support.
The court therefore, discountenanced the newspaper report adding that the decision of the lower court that the respondent proved his case, can still stand, as it would have been the same based on the affidavit.
It further held that the injunction granted by the trial court was exactly the request of the respondent|plaintiff for his benefit. The Nation
