LawPavilion Online


Back

MR. ADEJOLA ADEPOJU ADEBOWALE v. MR. DUROJAIYE SEGUN ROBINSON

(2018) LPELR-44424(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 15th day of May, 2018

CA/EK/33/2015


Before Their Lordships

AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria


Between

MR. ADEJOLA ADEPOJU ADEBOWALE - Appellant(s)

AND

MR. DUROJAIYE SEGUN ROBINSON - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Tort of Malicious Prosecution.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Ekiti State High Court, Ado Ekiti.

The case of the appellant was that the defendant/respondent willfully and unlawfully sprayed chemical on his crops which resulted in the damage to his pineapple and other crops.

On the other hand, the case of the respondent was that sometimes ago, the appellant reported him to people and police that he trespassed on his (the appellant) land. The appellant made false allegation against him that he destroyed his pineapple which led to his arrest and he was subsequently charged to Court for malicious damages. It was the appellant who instigated the police to arraign him in Court for malicious damage. The action of the Appellant was actuated by malice. At the end of the trial, he was discharged and acquitted.

In the Writ of Summons and statement of Claim filed by the Respondent, he claimed the sum of "two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) general damages for malicious prosecution of claimant between 2010 and 2011 by the defendant in charge MID/16C/2010 before the Magistrate Court, Ido Ekiti which ended in the discharge and acquittal of the claimant."

The trial Court found in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied, Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:
The issues for determination in the appeal are:
(1) Whether the trial Court was right in holding that the appellant has no defence when it closed its eyes to the statement of defence filed by the appellant on 23rd March, 2012 and amended statement of defence and counter-claim filed on 21st May, 2013.
(2) Whether the trial Court was right in admitting and relying on Exhibit P2, the record of proceedings in a criminal matter when same is inherently inadmissible in civil matter?
(3) Whether in view of the evidence before the Court, the ingredients of malicious prosecution have been established by the Respondent to entitle him to judgment.
(4) Whether the Respondent has any evidence before the Court upon which the Court could grant the reliefs of the respondent.
(5) Whether the entire decision of the lower Court actually contain reason or reasons sufficient enough to enter judgment in favour of the Respondent as the entire judgment dated 3rd December, 2014 lacked reasons before arriving at same.

DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed.


Read Full Judgment