"In the instant appeal, I have noted that both the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent lodged complaints with the police. Learned counsel to the Appellant wrote a letter to the 1st Respondent on 15th February, 2012 against the 3rd Respondent wherein he alleged thus:
"Our client informed us that to his utter consternation and chagrin, and despite knowing that the land in question is not his own, the said Edward Ekpa (3rd Respondent) on or about February 11, 2012 has forcibly entered our client's land, maliciously damaged part of the fence put up by our client and without the leave and/or consent of our client have started digging up part of our client's land with the sole aim of laying a foundation and building thereon, all of this he has done with impunity with the connivance of some land officers."
On his part, the 3rd Respondent also lodged a complaint with the Police as reflected on page 64 of the record of appeal where the Police titled it as: "EXTRACT FROM CRIME DIARY". Under "Details of Entry" it was written by the Police thus: "One Akpa Ekemere Owaji (M) of No. 11 Etche Street Borokiri Port Harcourt came to the station today 11/01/2011 at about 1820 hrs and reported that he own a land at Plot 404 E Trans-Amadi Phase II Port Harcourt. That today 11/01/2011 when he visited the land in question he discovered that unknown person or persons forcibly entered into the land without his consent. The complainant further stated that he has made several contact to trace the person or persons but all effort proved abortive hence his report. Action: Case recorded for record purpose. Sgt. Ngene Friday."
Thus it is this extract by the police that seems to galvanized them into action to discover the "unknown person or persons". However the person who is "unknown" made himself "known" via a letter by his counsel written more than one year later which I quoted above wherein he is also claiming that the 3rd Respondent entered his land and "maliciously damaged" part of the same land by digging the land with the "sole aim of laying of foundation and building" thereon. Thus in this scenario two citizens lodged a complaint with the Police of encroachment or trespass into their land which clearly revealed that it is a case of competing claim to title over the same land. What happened thereafter is entirely the responsibility of the Police as held by the Supreme Court in FAJEMIROKUN (Supra). It is not the duty of either the Appellant or the 3rd Respondent to direct the police how to investigate their complaints.
However, common sense dictates that the police with due respect, ought to have hands off all further investigation at this stage and direct the parties to seek legal redress in the appropriate Court. Unfortunately the police decided to make a mountain out of a mole hill by trying to impute crime into the misunderstanding. In the process of "investigation" they collected the title documents of the Appellant and 3rd Respondent and forwarded them via Exhibit 'POL2' (page 65 of the Records) to the Ministry of Lands and Survey Port Harcourt to "ascertain the owner as to know who is in lawful possession".
It is obvious that by this act the police has gone beyond their powers of investigating a crime as provided under Section 4 of the Police Act. They are attempting to conduct a trial to determine who has a better title between the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent over the land in dispute. Police duties under the relevant statutes, including the Police Act do not confer on them power to determine the rights of parties to land and I so hold. See: 1: ADEBO V. OMISOLA (Supra) 2: NKAPA V. NKUME (2001) 6 NWLR {Pt. 710} 543 at 549. 3: AGBAI V. OKOGBUE (1991) 7 NWLR {Pt. 204} 391. The situation degenerated to an absurd stage when a counsel who ought to know better went overboard and vested on the police the judicial powers of adjudication over land matters. Learned counsel to the 3rd Respondent wrote to the 2nd Respondent, the Divisional Police Officer (D.P.O) of Amadi Ama Police Station, on 18th August, 2011 thus:"That our client and the said architect Ogan were invited by your men for interrogation in which all parties were warned to maintain the status quo i.e. to keep clear from the plot, pending the outcome of their findings at the Ministry of Land and Survey as to the true owner of the said plot." (page 98 of the Records). The said counsel even canvassed for "judgment" to be entered in favour of his client by the police when he pleaded thus:
"Finally Sir, we urge you to use your good offices to see that our client's interest is protected..." (page 99 of the record of appeal). Upon considering the facts and circumstances of this appeal, it is clear as crystal the Police went beyond their normal duties provided under Section 4 of the Police Act and delved into settlement of civil disputes which this Court frowns at on several occasions. In BERNARD ANOGWIE & ORS V. EBERE ODOM & ORS (2016) LPELR - 40214 (CA) this Court held per OHO JCA on pages 18 - 19 paragraphs D - E as follows:".....the invitation of the police to intervene in a matter that is purely civil in nature cannot be justified under any circumstances. The duties of the police as provided under Section 4 of the POLICE ACT, Cap 359 LFN 1990 does not include the settlement of civil disputes or the collection of debts or enforcement of civil agreements between parties...."
Section 4 of the Police Act provides: "The Police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crimes, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations which they are directly charged and shall perform such military duties within or without Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other Act." See INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANOR V. DR. PATRICK IFEANYI UBAH & ORS (2014) LPELR - 23968 (CA) per IYIZOBA JCA on (Pg 33 - 34 paragraphs F - B)."
Per SANGA, J.C.A. IN OGAN v. C.O.P RIVERS STATE & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44293(CA)
