The Federal High Court sitting in Makurdi has dismissed in its entirety a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by a commercial truck driver, Gbuuka Benjamin, against the Chief of Air Staff, the Nigerian Air Force and two of its personnel, holding that the applicant failed to prove the alleged violations of his fundamental rights.
Justice R. J. Egbe, who delivered judgment on October 7, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/MKD/CS/193/2025, also struck out the name of the Attorney-General of the Federation, who was sued as the fifth respondent, after finding that no cause of action was disclosed against him.
The court held that Benjamin’s evidence was “replete with contradictions, inconsistencies and half truth” and could not be relied upon.
The suit, titled Gbuuka Benjamin v. The Chief of Air Staff & 4 Ors, arose from an incident involving a Mercedes Benz 911 truck and a Nigerian Air Force vehicle in Makurdi, Benue State, on June 24, 2025.
Benjamin had approached the court under Sections 34, 35, 37, 41 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended; the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009; and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, alleging torture, intimidation, arrest, detention, degrading treatment and unlawful seizure of property.
He claimed that officers of the Nigerian Air Force Tactical Air Command in Makurdi arrested, tortured and detained him after a road incident involving the truck he was driving and a vehicle belonging to the Air Force.
The applicant also alleged that his footwear and mobile phones were confiscated during his detention.
He further claimed that the Air Force unlawfully seized and continued to detain the Mercedes Benz truck, registration number FGE 745 XA, which he said belonged to Mr James Chorough and was being driven by him with Terhide Akpenwuan as conductor.
According to Benjamin, the truck was carrying firewood belonging to Philip Nyianaka for delivery to Seraph Company Ltd, Makurdi.
He asked the court to declare the alleged arrest, detention, torture and seizure of the truck unlawful and in violation of his constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty, privacy, freedom of movement and property.
The applicant also sought an order directing the respondents to release the truck to him fully loaded and in good condition.
He demanded ₦25.8 million as alleged loss of income on the truck, calculated at ₦300,000 per day from June 24 to September 18, 2025, and a further ₦300,000 per day until the truck was released.
Benjamin also claimed ₦400,000 as compensation for the firewood, ₦10 million for loss of business time and opportunities, ₦100 million as compensation for alleged torture, psychological trauma, embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience and loss of earnings, and another ₦50 million as punitive and exemplary damages.
He additionally sought ₦2 million as the cost of prosecuting the suit, an apology to be published on the front page of a national newspaper circulating in Makurdi, and an order declaring the second and third respondents unfit to continue serving in the Armed Forces.
The fixed monetary claims totalled ₦188.2 million, while the applicant’s side put the cumulative claim at more than ₦250 million when the continuing ₦300,000 daily claim was factored in.
Benjamin told the court that on June 24, 2025, he was transporting firewood valued at ₦400,000 from Agasha to Seraph Company Ltd in Makurdi when his truck was struck by an Air Force vehicle being towed by another Air Force Tata truck.
According to him, the rope connecting the two Air Force vehicles snapped, causing one of them to lose control and hit his truck.
He alleged that personnel of the Tactical Air Command, led by WO Daniel S.Y. and FS Usman T., subsequently seized the truck and arrested, tortured and detained him and two others until the following day.
Benjamin said he was later released without the truck.
He further told the court that the refusal to release the truck prompted him to engage the Makurdi office of J. S. Okutepa, SAN & Co., which wrote to the Chief of Air Staff and the Officer Commanding the Tactical Air Command demanding its release.
However, the Chief of Air Staff, the Nigerian Air Force and the two personnel denied the allegations.
In their joint counter-affidavit, the first to fourth respondents maintained that Benjamin was the person who drove against traffic and dangerously hit an Air Force Tata truck while attempting to overtake another vehicle, damaging its rear tyres.
They tendered photographs of the incident as Exhibits A1 and A2.
The respondents further alleged that Benjamin and his conductor fled the scene after the accident.
According to them, Air Force personnel changed the damaged tyres and moved Benjamin’s truck to the Air Force Base to prevent obstruction of traffic.
They said Benjamin and his conductor only reported at the base two days later and were asked to return with the owner of the truck so that he could inspect the damage caused to the Air Force vehicle.
The respondents said they never returned.
They further stated that the Commander of NAF 151 Base Services Group subsequently directed that a formal complaint be made to the police and that the truck be transferred to them.
The Military Training Officer was said to have made the report and handed over the truck to E Division of the Nigeria Police Force, with a copy of the statement of handover tendered as Exhibit A3.
The respondents therefore denied arresting, detaining or torturing Benjamin and insisted that the truck was no longer in their custody but had been transferred to the police.
The Attorney-General of the Federation also denied any involvement in the alleged rights violations.
The AGF argued that he was neither involved in the incident nor responsible for the administration and management of the Chief of Air Staff, the Nigerian Air Force or the two personnel.
His counsel consequently argued that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him.
At the hearing, the applicant was represented by J. A. Mbaadega, Esq., holding the brief of J. T. Gurgur, Esq.; Darlington Onyekwere, Esq., appeared for the first to fourth respondents; while Nana Fatima Anom, Esq., represented the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The court distilled two principal issues for determination.
The first was whether the Attorney-General of the Federation was a necessary party to the action and whether any cause of action had been disclosed against him.
The second was whether the applicant had proved the alleged violations of his fundamental rights.
On the first issue, Justice Egbe agreed with the AGF that no wrongdoing had been attributed to him or any officer under his authority.
The judge held that the office of the Attorney-General should not automatically be joined in suits against independent government agencies where the facts disclose no direct or indirect involvement by the AGF.
“From all the facts before this court in this suit as averred by the Applicant, no wrongdoing can be traced to the 5th Respondent or any of his officers directly or indirectly,” the court held.
Justice Egbe noted that the Nigerian Air Force exists independently of the office of the Attorney-General in its structure, powers, finances and control.
She therefore held that the AGF was not a necessary party and that no cause of action was disclosed against him.
The name of the Attorney-General of the Federation was accordingly struck out of the suit.
Turning to the substantive allegations of fundamental rights violations, the court restated the principle under Section 131 of the Evidence Act that the person who alleges the existence of a fact bears the burden of proving it.
Justice Egbe held that Benjamin was required to establish his allegations by credible evidence sufficient to satisfy the court.
However, the judge identified several inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence.
The court observed that although Benjamin was the sole applicant in the action, his affidavit, further affidavit and counsel’s written addresses repeatedly referred to “three applicants”.
In one part of his supporting affidavit, Benjamin claimed that the second and third respondents and other Air Force personnel “descended on me, 2nd and 3rd applicants respectively and severely assaulted us”.
The court observed that similar references to three applicants appeared repeatedly throughout the processes filed on his behalf.
Justice Egbe also noted conflicting accounts regarding who drove against traffic.
While Benjamin alleged in his supporting affidavit that the respondents drove against traffic, the respondents maintained that he was the one who drove against traffic and struck their vehicle.
The court further considered the applicant’s evidence concerning the whereabouts of the truck.
The respondents had stated in their counter-affidavit that the truck had been transferred to the police at E Division.
In his further affidavit, Benjamin responded by stating that the respondents had taken the vehicle to E Division Police Station, Akpehe, Makurdi, after several days of detention.
Justice Egbe held that this admission showed that Benjamin knew the Air Force respondents were no longer in possession of the truck, yet he still asked the court to order them to produce and release it.
“From the above averment, the Applicant was aware that the Respondents had taken the truck to the police, yet approached this Court to order them to produce it. How can the Respondents be ordered to produce what is not in their possession?” the judge asked.
The court held that the inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the applicant’s case.
“There is no doubt that the above pieces of evidence contained in the affidavits of the Applicant are not only inconsistent but falls far from credibility,” Justice Egbe held.
The judge relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Akeredolu v. Registered Trustees of the Gofamint & Ors (2022) LPELR-57840(CA) on the meaning of credible evidence.
Justice Egbe ultimately held that Benjamin had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the respondents violated his fundamental rights.
“In all, the Applicant’s evidence is replete with contradictions, inconsistencies and half truth and cannot be relied upon. Therefore, he failed to prove his case against the Respondents and this issue is resolved against the Applicant. Accordingly, this suit is dismissed,” the court held.
The judgment was originally scheduled for delivery on July 15, 2026, but the court explained that it was among judgments lost as a result of a computer malfunction before the court’s long vacation.
It was eventually delivered on October 7, 2026, while a certified true copy was issued by the Federal High Court Registry in Makurdi on October 15.
Benjamin, who was present in court, was represented by J. T. Gurgur, Esq., with S. O. Oche, Esq., of J. S. Okutepa, SAN & Co.
Darlington Onyekwere, Esq., of J-K Gadzama LLP led the legal team for the Chief of Air Staff, the Nigerian Air Force and the two personnel, while Nana Fatima Anom, Esq., of the Makurdi Zonal Office of the Federal Ministry of Justice, appeared for the Attorney-General of the Federation.
Post Title: “Applicant’s Evidence Is Replete With Contradictions, Inconsistencies And Half Truth” — Court Dismisses Over ₦250m Rights Suit Against Air Force By Naijaonpoint.