A Legal analysis of the Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1695/2023 – Abubakar Marshal v. Directorate of Road Traffic Services & Ors and its affirmation on appeal

Introduction

The relationship between Nigerian motorists and traffic enforcement agencies has long been uneasy, often marked by uncertainty about the scope of official powers and the rights of road users. Among the agencies frequently at the centre of this tension is the Vehicle Inspection Office (VIO), whose officials are commonly seen stopping vehicles, demanding documents, imposing fines, and in some cases impounding cars on the spot.

In Abubakar Marshal v. Directorate of Road Traffic Services & Ors (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1695/2023), the Federal High Court, Abuja, was invited to determine whether these practices were supported by law or amounted to an abuse of administrative authority. The decision of the court and its subsequent affirmation by the Court of Appeal has become a significant moment in Nigeria’s traffic law jurisprudence, clarifying the limits of VIO’s statutory powers and reinforcing important constitutional safeguards.

This article examines why the case was brought, what the Federal High Court decided, the basis of the appeal, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, and the broader implications of the decisions.

Why the Matter Came Before the Federal High Court

The suit arose from an incident in which Abubakar Marshal, a private motorist, alleged that officials of the Vehicle Inspection Office stopped him along Jabi, Abuja, seized his vehicle, and imposed penalties without lawful authority. According to the applicant, the actions of the VIO officers went beyond routine vehicle inspection and crossed into enforcement activities for which there was no clear statutory basis.

He argued that these acts violated several of his constitutionally guaranteed rights, including his right to freedom of movement, right to property, presumption of innocence, and right to fair hearing as protected under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

Relying on the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, the applicant approached the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking declaratory reliefs, injunctive orders restraining VIO from continuing such practices, and monetary compensation for the alleged violation of his rights.

The Decision of the Federal High Court

In its judgment, delivered by Justice N.E. Maha of the Federal High Court, the court undertook an examination of the statutory framework governing the Vehicle Inspection Office. Central to the court’s analysis was the absence of any federal statute expressly authorising VIO officials to stop vehicles on public roads, impose fines, or confiscate vehicles from motorists.

The court held that the core function of the Vehicle Inspection Office is limited to inspection and certification of vehicles, particularly in relation to roadworthiness.

While acknowledging that vehicle inspection is an important aspect of road safety, the court made a clear distinction between inspection and enforcement.

Justice Maha found that stopping motorists, imposing fines, seizing vehicles, or coercing payment without recourse to a court of law amounted to an unlawful assumption of judicial powers. Such actions, the court reasoned, offended the principle of separation of powers and violated the applicant’s constitutional rights.

Consequently, the court granted reliefs in favour of the applicant and issued a perpetual injunction restraining the VIO, its officers, agents, or privies from stopping vehicles, confiscating them, or imposing fines on motorists. The court also awarded monetary damages in the sum of N2,500,000.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only, against VIO.

The decision effectively declared the routine roadside enforcement practices of VIO, as complained of in the suit, to be unconstitutional and unlawful.

The Defendant’s Appeal

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Federal High Court, the Vehicle Inspection Office and the other defendants exercised their right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division.

The appellants challenged the decision on several grounds. In summary, they argued that the Federal High Court erred in law by restricting the powers of VIO, and that VIO officials were acting within the scope of their administrative responsibilities in the interest of public safety. They contended that preventing unroadworthy vehicles from operating on highways necessarily included stopping such vehicles and taking appropriate action.

The appellants further argued that the trial court misconstrued the statutory and regulatory basis for VIO operations and that the orders granted were overly broad, effectively disabling the agency from performing its functions.

On the other hand, the respondent maintained that the appeal lacked merit, reiterating that there was no statute empowering VIO officials to perform enforcement roles akin to those of the police or other legally recognised traffic enforcement agencies. He urged the appellate court to uphold the judgment of the Federal High Court.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeal

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court that there was no legal foundation authorising VIO officials to stop motorists, seize vehicles, or impose fines outside a court process.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that while administrative agencies may be created to perform regulatory functions, their powers must be clearly derived from statute. Any action taken outside such statutory authority is ultra vires and unlawful.

The Court further reaffirmed the principle that only a court of law possesses the power to determine liability and impose sanctions such as fines or forfeiture of property. Administrative convenience or long-standing practice, the court held, cannot substitute for legal authority.

Why the Decision Matters

Beyond the immediate parties, the significance of the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1695/2023 lies in its broader affirmation of constitutionalism and the rule of law. The decisions of both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal serve as a reminder that government agencies, no matter how well-intentioned, must operate strictly within the limits set by law.

The judgments do not suggest that vehicle inspection is unnecessary or that road safety should be compromised. Rather, they underscore that enforcement powers cannot be assumed simply because they appear practical or have been exercised without challenge for years.

For motorists, the case clarifies that sanctions affecting liberty or property must follow due process. For government agencies, it reinforces the need for statutory clarity and legislative backing if enforcement roles are to be expanded beyond inspection and advisory functions.

Conclusion

Abubakar Marshal v. Vehicle Inspection Officer & Ors is a straightforward case with a powerful message: administrative bodies must know the boundaries of their authority, and courts will intervene where those boundaries are crossed.

Both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal spoke with one voice in holding that the Vehicle Inspection Office lacks the legal power to stop vehicles, impose fines, or confiscate property in the manner complained of. The affirmation of this position at the appellate level has now given the judgment added weight and precedential value.

In a legal environment where everyday interactions between citizens and regulators are often fraught with uncertainty, this case stands as a calm but firm assertion that legality, not habit, is the foundation of lawful governance.

Written by Oladeji Ibukunoluwa

Edited by Onyinyechi Ezeoke