Alhaji Jibrin Garba V. Alhaji Isa Tarihu Maigoro (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OKEZIE, J.C.A.

 This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Gongola State Holden at Yola in a claim for damages for defamation of character, malicious prosecution and injunction.

The parties exchanged pleadings. The plaintiff testified and called 4 witnesses and the defendant who also testified called one witness.

The case for the plaintiff was briefly: that he was a plaintiff in an action against the defendant in the High Court, while the defendant was a complainant in a criminal case on allegations of criminal defamation of character against the plaintiff at the Area Court. That the defendant lodged a report with the police that the plaintiff set fire on his vehicle parked in front of his residence on the 21st November, 1988.

Consequently, the plaintiff was arrested, interrogated and detained for about two days. The Police later charged the plaintiff with an offence of mischief by fire before the Upper Area Court Yola. He was discharged on the 13th, February, 1989 on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.
The complaint was that at the time the report was made the defendant knew that the report he was making was false, and the false report was made maliciously and negligently. He alleged that the false and malicious allegations caused him great anxiety and ridicule. He suffered spite to reputation and business by the continuous act of the defendant out of spite, malice and hatred. The plaintiff therefore claimed N500, 000.00 Damages.
The case for the defendant is that on 21st November, 1988 at about 3.00a.m unknown person(s) set fire on one of his vehicles parked in front of his residence. He agreed that he lodged a complaint thereof to the police. When asked if he suspected anyone, he answered in the negative. Whereof he was asked if he had any misunderstanding with any person howsoever, whereupon the defendant mentioned the plaintiff as his political rival. According to the defendant, the police on their own, thereafter arrested the plaintiff interrogated and prosecuted him.

From the pleadings it is common ground that the plaintiff was prosecuted.
The judgment in the case was given “I accordingly discharge both accused persons ……., the Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to establish any prima facie case against both accused persons. He was relying on the ruling according to his proceedings in evidence as Exhibit E.
The trial Judge after reviewing all the evidence adduced was satisfied that there was prima facie absence of reasonable and probable cause, that the prosecution was instituted by actual malice on the part of the defendant and that the prosecution was determined in favour of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff has established prima facie malicious prosecution and defamation of character. He awarded the sum of N20, 000.00 damages to the plaintiff against the defendant.
The defendant appealed against the decision on one original, ground of appeal.
He sought and was granted leave to file 8 additional Grounds of Appeal numbered 1 to 8. The one original ground renumbered ground 9.

For this appeal, the appellant filed 9 nine grounds which may be summarized as follows:

1. The learned trial Judge erred and mis-directed himself in law and facts when he held “As to whether the defendant has acted without reasonable and probable cause. I list below what I regard as unreasonable and not probable cause of conduct of the defendant.

(a) The plaintiff’s house at Shinco Road is far (over one mile or about 2 Km from the house of the defendant where the defendant’s car was burnt on the 21/11/87 and so is not reasonable to suspect the plaintiff’.) See p. 42 lines 2081-2085.

2. The learned trial Judge erred and misdirected himself in law and fact when he found and held as unreasonable as follows:

“(b) There is lapse (sic) of time between the time the defendant was alleged to have been defamed by plaintiff (when the defendant alleged that plaintiff said that defendant sold Ganzaki Traders to Local Government (sic) Chairman Aspirants) and the time when defendant’s vehicle was burnt. The politics and elections were in November 1988 almost one year lapse. Furthermore, the defendant did not say that as at November, 1988 this politics and elections or any other elections was going on to justify his suspicion of the plaintiff and plaintiff’s (sic) “close supporter” Sanda S/pawa (See p.42 lines 2085-2094.)

3. The learned trial Judge erred and misdirected himself in fact and law when he held as unreasonable and without probable cause “(c) The defendant after reporting to the police also gave GBC reporters the same information but -referred to the suspects as his political opponents and enemies not by name) (See p. 42 lines 2095-2098).

4. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he found and held as follows:

To my mind the above reasons render acts by defendant to be without reasonable cause. There circumstances influenced the police in the prosecution of a charge of mischief by fire against the plaintiff which charge is false to the defendant’s knowledge. (See p. 42 last five lines)