100. In the instant case, to qualify for an award of reparation, the Applicant must
prove the prejudice suffered which was occasioned by the decision of the
Committee, for example that based on the decision, he was dismissed or
suspended from work, or his salaries and emoluments were unpaid. The Court
was not presented with any facts evidencing any harm, injury or prejudice arising
from said violation. The Court is therefore constrained from awarding the sum
claimed in the sum of eight hundred and fifty five million, Six hundred and twenty
five thousand Naira only (N855,625,000) for general damages.
110. Moreover in the event that the court contemplates a monetary award, it is
important to state that the object of award is not to enrich the party. This court
has clearly put this straight in EBERE ANTHONIA AMADI & 3 ORS v. THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/22/19 @ Pg 14 where it held that;
“…..its principal object of an award in human rights violation is to vindicate the
injured feelings of the victim and to restore his rights…..”
111. Consequently the Court holds that the Applicant while not entitled to the
amount claimed, will be awarded only nominal damages which is usually
awarded where a violation has been proved but the Applicant has not established
the loss suffered. The Court is persuaded by the decision in the case of Wiston
Churchill Vs Louis Adamic where a publishers-Harpers Bros had written that the
British Prime Minister had been drunk at a dinner at the White House, the jury
found that even though a violation was established, the prime minister did not
suffer loss to his reputation and therefore awarded the sum of one English
Shillings (25 cents).
112. In the instant case, in view of the fact that the Applicant did not established
the loss he suffered, the Court therefore awards the sum of N50 (fifty Naira only)
as a symbolic gesture in recognition of the fact that there was indeed a violation
of his right.
113. Just Satisfaction
The Court hasten to state that in addition to monetary damages, a declaratory
relief in the form of just satisfaction is also a reparation which at the most basic
level, recognises a judgement in favour of a victim as in itself a form of
satisfaction. In this regard The Inter-American Court of human right held thus
“As for the measures of satisfaction and the guarantee of non-occurrence that
the victim’s representatives and the Commission are seeking, the Court believes
31