Yoruba nation agitator, Chief Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho, has challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeal which dismissed the verdict of the lower court that awarded him N20billion compensation for aggravated damages against the federal government following the invasion of his residence by the Department of State Services (DSS).
Operatives of the DSS had on July 1, 2021, raided Igboho’s residence in Ibadan, Oyo State, where two of his allies were killed and properties, including cars and other valuables were destroyed.
Igboho, who escaped the attack before his arrest in Benin Republic, had dragged the DSS and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) before an Oyo State High Court presided over by Justice Ladiran Akintola for violation of his fundamental human rights.
Justice Akintola, in his ruling in September of the same year, awarded N20billion damages against the Federal Government.
However, the Ibadan Division of the Appellate Court presided over by Justice Muslim Hassan in its judgement delivered in August 2022, nullified the judgement of the Oyo State High Court that declared the attack on Igboho’s residence as illegal.
The appellate court described the award of damages against the Federal Government as outrageous.
Dissatisfied by the appellate court ruling, Igboho, in a suit marked SC/CV/1436/22 filed by his counsel, Yomi Alliu, before the Supreme Court and dated March 10, 2025, listed 19 grounds of appeal.
Joined as defendants in the suit include the Attorney General of the Federation, Department of State Services (DSS) and Director of DSS in Oyo State.
According to the court documents, Igboho wanted the apex court to determine among others “whether his fundamental rights had been breached and/or threatened to be breached thereby situating his application in fundamental rights enforcement proceeding than in torts as held by the Lower Court. (Grounds 1 & 2).”
The appellant also wanted the Supreme Court to determine: “Whether the Lower Court could discountenance, as it did, the preliminary objections raised by the appellant simply because it was raised in his brief and because there were other good grounds that could maintain the appeal (Grounds 3, 4 & 5).
“Whether the appellants’ brief filed by the respondents at the Lower Court out of time stipulated by the rules is competent and whether same could be deemed to have been waived by the respondent (now the Appellant) by filing respondent’s brief thereafter (Grounds 6, 7 & 8).
“Whether an application for extension of time to file an additional record of appeal could be used to cure fundamental default in not filing the original record of appeal within time as allowed by the learned Justices of the Lower Court. (Ground 9).
“Whether the Lower Court was right in holding that the award of special damage was wrong for not being supported with valuation report notwithstanding the uncontradicted affidavit evidence sup-ported with exhibits showing items damaged and invoices submitted by experts in the field (Grounds 17 & 18).
“Whether it is not the duty of a government agency like the respondents to prove beyond reasonable doubt that illegal arms allegedly recovered from the house of a citizen was as alleged moreso when apart from the video recordings they made there, the respondents also made away with CCTV in the house. (Ground 15).
“Whether the assessment of aggravated and/or exemplary damages by the learned trial judge is unilateral and/or irrational and not in compliance with laid down rules for assessing same (Ground 16).”
