Mr. Koffy Ndubisi Udeagha V. Mr. Ben Nwogwugwu (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Appellant filed this appeal against “the judgment of the High court of justice No. 11 Miller Road Kano, dated 17th day of November, 2003,” in suit No. K/238/96. But on the record of Appeal, the suit No. is K/557/96, delivered on the said 17/11/03 by Hon. Justice Mohd H. Abdullahi, of Kano State High Court, whereof the learned trial judge held:

“I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved the allegation of malicious arrest and detention by the defendant (sic) total 9 days with 4 at Sharada and 5 at CID I therefore assess the damages these (sic) to in favour of the defendant (sic) to be N20,000.00 per day total N180,000.00.”

The plaintiff’s claim at the Lower Court, as per his Amended statement of claim, was for:

“(a) Special Damages of N1,903,196.60 being the value of the skin that was ruined due to the act.

(b) General Damages of N500,000.00 for the arrest and fake imprisonment and

(c) Loss of returns on investment at 35% net profit every two months plus cost of this action.” (Page 98 of the Records)

A brief facts of the case at the Lower Court showed that the plaintiff (now Respondent) was sometime an employee of the Defendant (Appellant herein), until May 1996, when he resigned from the Defendant’s Company and set up his own private business in Kano as skin tanner. On 12/9/96, he was at a Full Gospel Business-men Fellowship in Kano, when he was arrested, in the evening, by the Police in the presence of other members of the Fellowship, pursuant to a complaint/report made to the Police by the Defendant, that he stole processed skin from him (Defendant) valued at N750,000.00; that the said stolen goods were recovered from plaintiff’s son and two other persons at Tan Arewa Tannery, where the plaintiff had purportedly gone to dispose of the goods.

The plaintiff was detained by the Police for a total period of 9 days before he was released on bail, which release angered the Defendant and he threatened further injury against the plaintiff. However, Police investigation revealed that the allegation was false, made without any cause and actuated by malice and bad faith.

The plaintiff called 3 witnesses to prove his case. The Defendant called 4 witnesses. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved the allegation of malicious arrest and detention.

Appellant’s notice of Appeal was filed on 26/11/2003, as per pages 151- 156 of the Records of Appeal, wherein Appellant raised 6 grounds of Appeal.

Appellant filed his brief of argument with the leave of Court and the same was deemed duly filed on 16/4/2007. Appellant’s brief did not, however, carry the appeal number, as only “suit No . K/557/96” appeared on the cover pages and page 1 of the Brief. The said “suit No. K/557/96” tallies with the suit No. K/557/96, said to be the suit number of the case at the Lower Court, reflected on the Records of Appeal, (on all the relevant pages thereof) except page 151, which carries the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant, wherein Appellant wrote the suit number as “HIGH COURT No. K/238/96″.

In the body of the Notice of Appeal Appellant did not state the suit number of the appeal, nor the judge who decided the case. He did not also state the State High Court that heard the case. The of the Notice of Appeal were as follows:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL