Facts:

The 1st to 6th Respondents commenced the action leading up to this appeal in the High Court of Rivers State under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 against the 7th to the 9th Respondents, the Appellant and the 10th Respondent as the 1st to 6th Respondents. The Appellant was the 4th Respondent. The 1st to the 6th Respondents sought for a declaratory order of a breach of their rights to personal liberty and freedom from inhuman/degrading treatment, orders for the release of the 2nd Respondent and of the vehicle of the 1st Respondent with items therein unlawfully detained in the premises of the Appellant and damages against the Appellant and the 7th to the 10th Respondents jointly and severally in the sum of N250 Million.

The case of the 1st to the 6th Respondents on the application was that 7th Respondent, a Lebanese, was the Project Manager of the 8th Respondent, who was a registered contractor of the Appellant handling all the civil engineering works at the Obagi Base Camp, while the 9th Respondent was an officer of the Nigerian Army detailed by the 10th Respondent to provide private security to the 7th Respondent. It was their case that on the 21st of January, 2012, there was an incident whereby soldiers led by the 9th Respondent, in the course of their providing security for the 7th Respondent, beat up staff of a company called Pontecelli Nigeria Ltd for overtaking their military convoy. It was their case that the 1st Respondent got involved in resolving the incident in his capacity as the General Time Keeper of Pontecelli Nigeria Ltd and Task Force Chairman of Saipem, Pontecelli and Decidom. It was their case that there was an exchange of harsh words, with racist slur, between the 7th Respondent and the 1st Respondent in the course of the resolution of the incident and that the matter was eventually settled amicably.

It was their case that a few days thereafter, on the 29th of January, 2012, the 1st Respondent, in the company of second to the 6th Respondents, while in Toyota Hiace Bus, were accosted and halted by the 9th Respondent, in the company of two military escorts who were involved in the earlier incident, and that this was near the premises of the 8th Respondent. It was their case that the first to the 6th Respondents were ordered to alight from the vehicle and that the 9th Respondent recognized the 1st Respondent and berated him for the altercation he had with the 7th Respondent in the course of the earlier incident and the soldiers took them and the vehicle into the premises of the 8th Respondent. It was their case that the 9th Respondent told them that the 7th Respondent had instructed them to deal with the 1st Respondent whenever they found him and that they were subjected to severe beating by the 9th Respondent and his military escorts and were in fact shot at and the second and 3rd Respondents sustained bullet wounds in the stomach and hand respectively. It was their case that the 9th Respondent and his cohorts thereafter impounded and drove off their vehicle and with the 2nd Respondent.

The trial court entered judgment against the Appellant. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the court affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.