News

Court Orders Police To Pay Osun Supermarket Owner ₦28m Over Illegal Raid, Detention

ByOlamilekan Adigun

PublishedJune 29, 2026

An Osun State High Court sitting in Osogbo, on Monday, ordered the Nigeria Police Force to pay a total of ₦28,836,000 to Mr Bamidele Ifamose, owner of First Citizens Supermarket, Osogbo, for violation of his fundamental rights to liberty, privacy and property.

Ifamose had on January 27, 2026, filed a suit against the Inspector-General of Police, the Commissioner of Police, Osun Command, DSP Tayo Lukman, Officer Nwaliu Alani, SP Akinade and Inspector Usman, who were the 1st to 6th respondents respectively, for violating his fundamental right.

In an affidavit deposed to by the applicant, a copy obtained by OSUN DEFENDER, the 3rd to 6th respondents, who are officers of the Anti-Narcotic Unit, State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), Osun State Police Command, Osogbo, were said to have invaded Ifamose supermarket on October 8, 2025 and carted away his goods.

Ifamose said the police officers claimed that they got a petition that some of the goods in his supermarket had expired, adding that the officers failed to show him a search warrant or the said petition.

Providing further details through the affidavit, the applicant said, “Upon my arrival, I met two vehicles — a commercial minibus (commonly known as korope) painted in Osun State colours and a police patrol van — parked in front of my Supermarket by the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents and other two officers of the said Anti-Narcotic Unit, whose names and ranks I could not ascertain at the material time.

“That upon my arrival at the Supermarket, I observed that the police patrol van had been pre-loaded with various goods, including beverages and bottled water, prior to the arrival of the respondents at my supermarket, while the officers led by DSP Tayo Lukman were at the same time carting goods from my Supermarket into the said commercial minibus (commonly known as korope).

“That upon inspecting the goods being carted away from my Supermarket, I
discovered that the goods were not expired, contrary to the Respondents’ claim, but my protest was ignored, and the respondents continued loading the unexpired goods into the commercial minibus (commonly known as korope).”

Ifamose said, despite his protest, his supermarket was sealed for four days, and he was handcuffed and taken to the state Police Command Headquarters, where he spent over 24 hours and was compelled to transfer the sum of ₦612,000 to a Point of Sales agent after the respondents had collected the sum of ₦46,500 found on him when he was arrested.

He explained that the goods carted away from his supermarket in the commercial bus were valued at ₦3,836,000, adding that the respondents subjected him to public humiliation, unlawfully extorted, and deprived him of his property.

But in the counter-affidavit through their counsel, O.G Maduku, who is the legal officer, Directorate of Legal Services, Osun State Police Command, the respondents said they carried out the raid lawfully.

The respondents claimed that they received a petition that the application was selling expired goods, which may affect the society. They also denied extorting the applicant.

In the reliefs sought through his counsel, Jacob Famodimu, the applicant, among others, asked for a declaration that his arrest without any prior invitation, reasonable suspicion, or lawful justification is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional, and a violation of his right to personal liberty.

He also sought a declaration that the invasion and search of his supermarket by the respondents without a warrant or lawful consent is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional, and constitutes a violation of his right to privacy under section 37 of the Constitution.

Famodimu further sought a “declaration that the seizure and carting away of the applicant’s goods from his supermarket by the respondents without lawful authority amounts to unlawful deprivation of property, contrary to section 44 of the Constitution.

“A declaration that the detention of the applicant in police custody without being informed of any offence known to law, without arraignment within a reasonable time, and for the purpose of extortion is illegal, and unconstitutional, and a violation of the applicant’s right to personal liberty
and freedom of movement under sections 35 and 41 of the Constitution.

“A declaration that the acts of extortion, coercion, intimidation and threats employed by the respondents to compel the applicant to part with his money as a condition for his release constitute inhuman and degrading
treatment, contrary to section 34 of the constitution.”

The applicant also sought an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents from further arresting, detaining, harassing, or intimidating him or from further raiding his supermarket in relation to the facts of the suit or otherwise except in strict compliance with due process of law.

Famodimu sought an order directing the respondents to refund him the total
sum of ₦658,500 being monies unlawfully extorted and directing the respondents to return forthwith to him, all goods carted away from his supermarket, or pay the sum of ₦3,836,000 in the alternative.

“An order awarding the sum of ₦20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira) as general and exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the unlawful arrest, detention, extortion, humiliation, loss of business, emotional trauma and infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

“An order directing the Respondents to publish a written apology to the applicant for the unlawful violation of his fundamental rights.”

In his judgment, Justice A.A Aderibigbe said the applicant was able to establish his case against the respondents.

Justice Aderibigbe said the applicant proved that he was not present when the respondents started carrying out their search and that the respondents failed to provide an inventory of the goods taken from the supermarket or where the applicant signed the inventory to ascertain the goods taken.

The judge also agreed with the applicant’s counsel that the arrest and detention of the applicant is without good lawful justification and amounted to a violation of his right to personal liberty and freedom of movement.