On Friday, October 19, 2007, we filed a torture and wrongful death complaint against the Iberia Airlines of Spain on behalf of the parents of Mr. Osamuyia Aikpitanhi who was murdered aboard the Iberia Airlines Plane on June 9, 2007. Having examined the circumstances of his death, it is our opinion that the conducts, actions and or omissions of the Iberia Airlines clearly attract serious legal consequences which we intend to pursue to its logical conclusions.
Incidentally, the U.S Courts are suitably positioned to entertain this type of acts in violation of international laws and conventions. Every injustice gives rise to a call for justice that expands to the limits of the injuries suffered. In the light of this, the Spanish government is also clearly culpable in Mr. Aikpitanhi’s torture and wrongful death as the conduct of its agents evidently fell below the internationally recognized standards and norms relating to the dignity of man and safety of life. Therefore, our office will, in the coming weeks, file a Complaint against the Spanish government before the European Court of Human Rights in France to seek appropriate sanctions and redress.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
_______________________________
JACOB AIKPITANHI
(In his individual capacity as father Hon. Judge: Paul D. Borman
of the Osamuyia Aikpitanhi, deceased) Referral Judge: Donald A. Sheer
Plaintiff.
Suit No: 2:07-cv-14468
-V-
IBERIA
AIRLINES OF
SPAIN
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Defendant.
______________________________/
Kayode Oladele, Esq.
Benjamin Whitfield, Jr. Esq.
Benjamin Whitfield Jr. & Associates, PC
Plaintiff’s Attorneys
220 W. congress,
Ste
200
Detroit
,
MI
48226
313-961-1000, 313-961-4300
Fax: 313-961-3110
_________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. That on June 9, 2007, Mr. Osamuyia Aikpitanhi, 23 years old, was killed while being deported from
Spain
by the Spanish Immigration authorities aboard an
Iberia
flight to
Nigeria
with the active support and acquiescence of the Defendant airlines which has the responsibility to ensure lives and safety of passengers aboard its aircraft.
2. That in a bid to deport Mr. Aikpitanhi, the decedent, from Spain to Nigeria , the Spanish law enforcement agents and the Defendant airline employed measures that were unreasonable, inhumane, illegal, and, ultimately, fatal.
3. That before he was put in the Defendant’s aircraft, the police administered tranquilizers on the decedent, handcuffed him, chained his legs, gagged with industrial strength rubber and put a sack, over his head, after they had taken turns beating before securing the assistance of the Defendant Airline to complete the final process of torturing and killing the deceased on board through their acts of negligence.
4. That with the support and negligence of the Defendant Airline, the Spanish Officials loaded the decedent like an animal onto an
Iberia
aircraft bound for
Lagos
,
Nigeria
.
5. That while putting the decedent inside the aircraft, the Defendant Airline in conjunction with the Spanish immigration officials covered the deceased with a sack in order to prevent other passengers traveling on the aircraft from observing the undignified and inhumane manner in which the deceased was restrained.
6. That while on board the Defendant aircraft, the decedent was subjected to pains, torture and inhuman treatment despite the fact that the decedent did not constitute a threat to other passengers in the aircraft.
7. That shortly after the aircraft became air borne, the decedent died. He died an inhuman death - bound, gagged and soiled in his own waste.
8. That the decedent died in the Defendant’s air plane, choking in his vomit, with excrements all over his body and Official medical reports admit the decedent died of suffocation.
9. That the decedent death ignited a flurry of international condemnation as the way and manner of his handling by both the Spanish authorities and the Defendant Airline shocked the human conscience and amounts to crime against humanity in violation of international laws and conventions.
10. That following the incidence, the Nigeria’s House of Representatives launched a public enquiry and invited the Spanish Ambassador to Nigeria, Angel Losada to appear before its ad-hoc committee to explain the circumstances of the decedent’s death.
11. The Ambassador, demonstrated contrition and a sense of responsibility by publicly apologizing for the incident on the floor of the House of Nigeria’s Representatives.
12. That the Defendant is liable for the decedent’s death as it was caused by the negligence, gross negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents who had a duty not to transport the decedent in such a badly dehumanized and life threatening situation but nonetheless, agreed to carry the decedent and thereby risking the decedent’s life which the decedent eventually gave up.
13. That the Defendant and its agents failed to take all necessary measures to avoid the decedent’s death in its aircraft even though, it was possible for them to take such measures such as refusing to transport the decedent in such an inhuman and dehumanizing condition but the Defendant and its agents negligently carried the decedent in exchange for money.
14. That other passenger on board the airplane protested to the Defendant’s agents against the barbaric nature of the decedent’s treatment all of which were ignored by the defendant’s agents
15. That the Defendant airline owed the decedent the highest degree of care with regard to the safety of the decedent passenger;
16. That the Defendant had the greatest degree of care possible to protect it’s the decedent but grossly neglected to do so.
17. That due to the Defendant’s negligence the decedent was subjected to person to unjust discrimination or unreasonable prejudice that resulted into his untimely death.
JURISDICTION
18. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction), 18
U.S.
C. § 1964 (c) (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and 28 U.S.C § 1350, and under the principles of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction. The Alien Tort Claims Act provides Federal jurisdiction for “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the
United States
.”
19. Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw, 12th October 1929, and/or that Convention as amended at The Hague, 28th September 1955, and/or that Convention as amended at Montreal, 25th September 1975, and/or that Convention as amended at Montreal, 25th September 1975, whichever may be applicable or Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air signed at Montreal, 28th May 1999 whichever is applicable;.
20. Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accident.
21. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958
22. Plaintiffs’ cause of action also arise under, among others, the following laws, agreements, resolutions and treaties:
a. Customary International Law;
b. United Nations Charter, 59 Stat. 1031, 3 Bevans 1153 (19450;
c. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res 217A(iii), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948);
d. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984);
e. Charter of the Organization of American States, 2 U.S.T. 2394, T.I.A.S. 2361, 119 U.N.T.S. 3, as amended, Protocol of Buenos Aires of 1967, 21 U.S.T. 607, T.I.A.S. No. 6847, 721 U.N.T.S. 324 (1970);
f. American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of
San Jose
,
Costa Rica
), O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, at 1, O.A.S. Off. Rec. OEA/Ser. L/V/11.23, Doc. 21, Rev. 2 (English 1978);
g. Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res 3452, 30 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No. 34) at 91, U.N. Doc. A/10034 (1976);
h. Organization of American States Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, O.A.S.T.S. No. 67, O.A.S. Doc. 0EA/Ser. P, AG/Doc. 023/85 Rev. 1, at 46-54 (English 1986), 25 International Legal Materials 519 (1986);
i. American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man, O.A.S. Res. Xxx, OAS Off. Rec. OEA/Ser. L/V/11. 23, Doc. 21, Rev. 6 (English 1979);
j. Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1350;
k. Common Law of the
United States of America
;
l. Laws of
Michigan
including, but not limited to, common law principles of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, torture and respondeat superior.
23. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is the proper venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §131367 based upon the laws of the State of Michigan.
PARTIES
24. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of
Nigeria
25. That Defendant, an European Union (EU) airline, Iberia Airlines of Spain is private air transport group which has its head office in Madrid, Spain but was registered as a State of Florida Foreign Profit Corporation in 1963 and reinstated in 1999.
26. The registered address of the Defendant in the State of
Florida
is
5835 Blue Lagoon Drive, Ste 350
,
Miami
Florida
33126
.
.
27. That defendant carries on business in the U.S and the State of
Michigan
.
28. That the Defendant is a common carrier within the definition of the transportation the law because it holds itself out to the public as willing to carry all passengers for hire or tariff.
29. That the Defendant’s business, conducted without interruption for about 80 years, is focused on transport of passengers and cargo, aircraft maintenance and handling services in airports across the world including the United States and State of Michigan;
30. That defendant Iberia Airlines is a founding member of “Oneworld”, the alliance of airlines around the globe, which together serves some 700 destinations and connections including the State of
Michigan
;
31. That the Defendant’s International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) code is ES0147200036.
32. That part of the Defendant’s policy as enshrined in its corporate social responsibility policy is to participate in national and international organizations and forums, in which programs related to social responsibility is supported and developed.
33. That the Defendant’s policy in its service commitment to passengers states that: “
Iberia
is staunchly committed to guaranteeing a quality service to its customers before, during, and after each flight”.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Torture)
34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33 as if fully set forth herein.
35. The acts are described herein were inflicted under color of law and under color of official authority by public officials and other persons acting in an official capacity in conspiracy with or active connivance and complicity of the Defendant.
36. That the Defendant provided its aircraft and personnel for the purposes of perpetrating these crimes against humanity;
37. The acts described herein were inflicted deliberately and intentionally for purposes only of deporting the decedent from
Spain
38. The acts described herein placed Plaintiffs in great danger and caused him to suffer severe physical and mental pain and suffering.
39. The acts described herein constitute torture in violation of customary international law, 28 U.S.C. Section 1350, the common law of the United States, the statutes and common law of Michigan, Constitution and other laws of Nigeria and the intentional treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions described in Paragraph 10 herein.
40. Defendant’s acts were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive and should be punished by an award of punitive damages.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment)
41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.
42. The acts are described herein were inflicted under color of law and under color of official authority by public officials and other persons acting in an official capacity or in conspiracy or collaboration with public officials with active connivance and support of the Defendant.
43. The acts described herein were committed while Plaintiff’s decedent was deprived of his liberty, and had the intent and the effect of grossly humiliating the Plaintiff’s decedent, inciting fear and anguish, breaking physical or moral resistance, and deliberately denying him medical and other physical needs in violation of the law of nations, 28 U.S.C. Section 1350, the common law of the United States, the Nigerian Constitution and other laws of Nigeria, the statutes and common law of Michigan and the international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions described in Paragraph 10 herein.
44. As a result of Defendants’ acts, the decedent forced to suffer severe physical and psychological abuse and agony.
45. Defendant’s actions were willful, intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive and should be punished by an award of punitive damages.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Imprisonment)
46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully set forth herein.
47. Defendants’ wrongful restraint of Plaintiffs against his will and without lawful privilege or reasonable cause, constituted kidnapping and false imprisonment, actionable under the laws of the United States, International law, Nigerian Constitution.
48. As a result of these actions, Plaintiff’s decedent was placed in great fear for his life and deprived of his freedom and forced to suffer severe physical and psychological abuse and agony.
49. The Defendant’s’ actions in collaboration with the Spanish authorities were willful, intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive and should be punished by an award of punitive damages.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Assault and Battery)
50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein.
51. Defendant’s act of torture inflicted upon Plaintiffs in connivance and conspiracy with the Spanish Authorities constitute assault and battery, actionable under the law of the
United States
, international human rights laws and laws of
Nigeria
.
52. As a result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff’s decedent was placed in great fear for his life and suffered severe physical and psychological abuse and agony.
53. Defendant’s acts in conspiracy with others acting under the color of law were willful, intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive and should be punished by an award of punitive damages.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein.
55. The torture, restraint, gagging and other acts of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which ultimately caused the death of the decedent constituted outrageous conduct in violation of all normal standards of decency and were without privilege or justification.
56. Defendant’s acts were intentional and malicious and done for the purposes of causing Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, mental anguish and extreme emotional and physical distress.
57. Defendant’s outrageous conduct constitutes negligent infliction of emotional distress.
58. Defendant’s acts were willful, intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully set forth herein.
60. Defendant’s torture, restraint, gagging and other acts of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which ultimately caused the death of the decedent constituted outrageous conduct in violation of all normal standards of
decency and were without privilege or justification.
61. Defendant’s actions were intentional and malicious and done for the purposes of causing Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, extreme emotional, physical distress and death.
62. Defendant’s outrageous conduct constitutes the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
63. Defendant’s acts were willful, intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive and should be punished by an award of punitive damages.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence)
64. The plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 63 as if fully set forth herein.
65. That the Defendant airline owed a duty of safety to the plaintiff’s decedent;
66. That the Defendant had the greatest degree of care possible to protect it’s the decedent but grossly neglected to do so.
67. That the Defendant airline owed the decedent the highest degree of care with regard to the safety of the decedent passenger;
68. That the Defendant did not act reasonably toward the decedent as it did not take every reasonable, necessary precaution to prevent the decedent’s death as the decedent was left to be gagged and restrained in a life threatening situation while on board and during the flight despite the fact that the decedent did not pose any risks to other passengers on board;
69. That the Defendant and its agents failed to take all necessary measures to avoid the decedent’s death in its aircraft even though, it was possible for them to take such measures such as refusing to transport the decedent in such an inhuman and dehumanizing condition but the Defendant and its agents negligently carried the decedent in exchange for money.
70. That other passenger on board the airplane protested to the Defendant’s agents against the barbaric nature of the decedent’s treatment all of which were ignored by the defendant’s agents;
71. That the breach proximately caused the Plaintiff’s decedent’s death;
72. That the breach was a substantial factor in causing the death because the plaintiff’s decedent was denied immediate medical attention when it became obvious that he was dying of suffocation and torture;
73. That the decedent was in the defendant’s care and custody when he died on board the airplane.
74. That the Defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known that death or grievous bodily harm was a foreseeable consequence of its negligence.
75. That due to the Defendant’s negligence the decedent was subjected to person to unjust discrimination or unreasonable prejudice that resulted into his untimely death.
76. . The injuries suffered by the Plaintiff’s decedent were reasonably foreseeable or anticipated by the Defendant as the natural consequences of the Defendant’s negligence.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Gross Negligence)
77. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully set forth herein.
78. That on June 9, 2007, Mr. Osamuyia Aikpitanhi, 23 years old, was killed while being deported from
Spain
by the Spanish Immigration authorities aboard an
Iberia
flight to
Nigeria
with the active support and acquiescence of the Defendant airlines which has the responsibility to ensure lives and safety of passengers aboard its aircraft.
79. That in a bid to deport Mr. Aikpitanhi, the decedent, from Spain to Nigeria, the Spanish law enforcement agents and the Defendant airline employed measures that were unreasonable, inhumane, illegal, and, ultimately, fatal.
80. That before he was put in the Defendant’s aircraft, the police administered tranquilizers on the decedent, handcuffed him, chained his legs, gagged with industrial strength rubber and put a sack, over his head, after they had taken turns beating before securing the assistance of the Defendant Airline to complete the final process of torturing and killing the deceased on board through their acts of negligence.
81. That with the support and gross negligence of the Defendant Airline, the Spanish Officials put the decedent like an animal onto an
Iberia
aircraft bound for
Lagos
,
Nigeria
.
82. That while putting the decedent inside the aircraft, the Defendant Airline in conjunction with the Spanish immigration officials covered the deceased with a sack in order to prevent other passengers traveling on the aircraft from observing the undignified and inhumane manner in which the deceased was restrained.
83. That while on board the Defendant aircraft, the decedent was subjected to pains, torture and inhuman treatment despite the fact that the decedent did not constitute a threat to other passengers in the aircraft.
84. That shortly after the aircraft became air borne, the decedent died. He died an inhuman death - bound, gagged and soiled in his own waste.
85. That the decedent died in the Defendant’s air plane, choking in his vomit, with excrements all over his body and Official medical reports admit the decedent died of suffocation.
86. That the Defendant is liable for the decedent’s death as it was caused by the gross negligence of the carrier or its servants or agents who had a duty not to transport the decedent in such a badly dehumanized and life threatening situation but nonetheless, agreed to carry the decedent and thereby risking the decedent’s life which the decedent eventually gave up.
87. That Defendant engaged in multiple acts of grossly negligent conduct in its handling of the decedent’s situation including but not limited to the following:
(a.) Failure to refuse to transport the decedent in such an inhuman and dehumanizing condition of torture, assault and battery.
(b.) Failure to refuse to cooperate with the Spanish immigration authorities in their dastardly act of torture , degrading and inhuman treatment of the decedent;
(c.) Accepting to carry the decedent on an international flight from Spain to Nigeria while the decedent was handcuffed, had his legs chained, gagged with industrial strength rubber and a sack over his head, while the decedent and thereby risking the decedent’s life which the decedent eventually gave up.
(d.) That the Defendant had the greatest degree of care possible to protect the decedent but grossly neglected to do so.
(e.) Failure to follow acceptable and or international standards for ensuring passenger’s safety.
88. Defendants was grossly negligent, its conduct extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
89. That due to the Defendant’s negligence the decedent was subjected to person to unjust discrimination or unreasonable prejudice that resulted into his untimely death.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant in excess of $10, 000,000.00 as follows:
a) For compensatory damages;
b) For punitive damages;
c) For treble damages;
d) For the cost of the suit, attorney fees and such pother relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN WHITFIELD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By:/s/kayode Oladele
Kayode Oladele, Esq.
Benjamin Whitfield Jr.
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
220 W. Congress,
Ste
200
Detroit
,
MI
48226
(313)961-1000
Dated: September 30, 2007. (313) 961-3110 (Fax)
Detroit
,
MI
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
_______________________________
JACOB AIKITANHI Hon. Judge: Paul D. Borman
(In his individual capacity as the father Referral Judge: Donald A. Sheer
of the Osamuyia Aikpitnhi, deceased)
Plaintiff.
Suit No: 2:07-cv-14468
-V-
IBERIA
AIRLINES OF
SPAIN
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Defendant.
______________________________/
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues so triable
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN WHITFIELD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By:/s/kayode Oladele
Kayode Oladele, Esq.
Benjamin Whitfield Jr.
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
220 W. Congress,
Ste
200
Detroit
,
MI
48226
(313)961-1000
Dated: September 30, 2007. (313) 961-3110 (Fax)
Detroit
,
MI
.
Posted by Robot| 22.10.2007 18:19