Appeal Court Affirms Ruling Barring VIO from Impounding Vehicles, Fining Motorists

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday upheld the judgment that stopped the Directorate of Road Traffic Services and Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO) from seizing vehicles or imposing fines on motorists.

In a unanimous decision by a three-member panel, the appellate court found no basis to set aside the Federal High Court’s ruling of October 16, 2024, which restrained the VIO from harassing motorists.

The appeal filed by the VIO was dismissed for lacking merit. Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi delivered in the lead judgment.

The high court had earlier ruled, in a judgment by Justice Nkeonye Maha, that no law authorizes the VIO to stop motorists, impound vehicles, or impose penalties for alleged traffic offences.

The case arose from a fundamental rights suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/1695/2023) filed by lawyer Abubakar Marshal.

Marshal informed the court that VIO officials stopped him at Jabi in Abuja on December 12, 2023, and seized his vehicle without lawful reason. He asked the court to determine whether their actions violated his rights.

Justice Maha agreed and ordered the VIO and its agents not to impound vehicles or impose fines on motorists, describing the actions as unlawful. She held that only a court can impose fines or sanctions.

She ruled that the VIO’s conduct breached the applicant’s constitutional right to property under Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 14 of the African Charter. She further held that the VIO has no legal authority to seize vehicles or penalize motorists, as doing so infringes on rights to fair hearing, movement and presumption of innocence.

Although Marshal, represented by Femi Falana, SAN, requested ₦500 million in damages and a public apology, the court awarded ₦2.5 million.

The Directorate of Road Traffic Services, its Director, its Abuja Area Commander at the time (identified as Mr. Leo), team leader Solomon Onoja, and the FCT Minister were listed as respondents.

They appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.