Abiodun Ojo V. Bamidele Lasisi & Anor. (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MIKA’ILU, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of Justice D. F. Babalola, Judge of the High Court of Justice of Ekiti State, holden at Ado-Ekiti, dated 11th July, 2001 in suit No. HAD/60/98. Biodun Ojo v. Bamidele & Anor.

Before the trial court; the appellant was sued by the respondents, where their claims as per paragraph 37 of their statement of claim are as follows:-

“37 whereof the plaintiffs jointly claim the sum of N1m. (one million Naira) as general damages from the defendant for defamation of character, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution between 21st June, 1998 and 3rd September, 1998 as shown below.

Particulars of claim

(a) Defamation of character N200,000.00 (two hundred thousand naira)

(b) Unlawful arrest N200,000.00 (two hundred thousand naira)

(c) False imprisonment/detention N200,000.00 (two hundred thousand naira)

(d) Malicious prosecution N400,000.00 (four hundred thousand naira).”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged in the court below. At the trial, each of the respondents testified for the case of the respondents. Three other witnesses also testified for them. The appellant also testified and called one other witness who also testified for the defence. Then the trial court having gone over the entire evidence and the submissions of both learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents passed decision to the effect that the claims for defamation of character and false imprisonment failed. He however, held that the claims of unlawful imprisonment of 9th – 11th July, 1998 and malicious prosecution had been established. Consequently, he awarded damages in the sum of 50,000.00 (Fifty thousand naira) for unlawful imprisonment N100,000.00 (One hundred thousand naira) for malicious prosecution and costs in the sum of N300,000.00 (three hundred thousand naira.) Dissatisfied with the said decision, the appellant filed this appeal before this court. As per his amended notice of appeal, he filed four grounds of appeal as follows:-

Grounds of Appeal

(1) The lower court erred in holding that:-

“I therefore hold the view that it is the act of the defendant that is responsible for the unlawful detention of the plaintiffs in the police custody from 9th July, to 11th July, 1998” And this led to a miscarriage of Justice.

Particulars of Error