A Benin division of the High Court of Justice has barred the Edo State government and Edo State Traffic Control and Management Agency (EDSTMA) from impounding vehicles, auctioning seized vehicles and demanding payment of penalties for alleged traffick violations without recourse to the court.
Chukwuka Jonathan Enegide, Esq. had dragged Edo State government, EDSTMA, its managing director and three others to court after the agency had impounded his vehicle over alleged traffick violations without recourse to the court.
He sought a declaration of the court that granting of absolute power to compulsorily taking possession of citizens’ vehicles, impound same indefinitely, impose fines, penalties and to auction same without affording them any opportunity of hearing is unconstitutional, illegal and viod.
He also urged the court to determine whether the relevant section of EDSTMA law granting absolute power to impound, auction vehicles or demand payment without recourse to the court is not inconsistent with section 1, 3, 35, 44 and 72 of the 1999 Constitution among other declarations.
The legal practitioner also sought the court to determine weather EDSTMA has the requisite competence to regulate, control, manage and delve into alleged traffic violation occuring on Federal Roads within the state.
In his ruling, the Justice P.A. Akhihiero, held that the applicant was able to prove his case and grant the declaration sought.
The judge also awarded N5 million as aggravated/exemplary damages against the defendant and N200, 000 as costs to the applicant.
“The relevant section of the EDSTMA law granting absolute power to impound and auction vehicles or demand payment of penalties without recourse to the courts are inconsistence with sections 1,3,36,44, and 75 of the 1999 Constitution and are declares null and void to the extent of inconsistency,” the judge added.
The Court also declared that the respondent’s illegal act of extortion, unlawful forcible seizure and compulsory acquisition of the applicant’s vehicle and its detention was unconstitutional and a violation of his right to fair hearing and property as guaranteed by the Constitution.