Malicious Prosecution

…………………….A…………………….

PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Ekiti State High Court, delivered on 3rd day of December, 2014 by His Lordship, Hon. Justice A.K. Fowe, granting all the claims of the Respondent.
In the Writ of Summons and statement of Claim filed at the registry of lower Court on 18th of November, 2011, Respondent claimed as follows:-
(a) 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.

Judgment in the suit was delivered on 3rd December, 2014 in favour of Respondent.
Dissatisfied with the said judgment, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal at the Registry of the lower Court.
Appellant subsequently filed amended Notice of Appeal.
The case of the appellant at the lower Court can be gleaned from Exhibits D1 and D2, is that the defendant 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 the respondent is struggling to put forward before the lower Court was that sometimes ago, the appellant reported him to people and police that he trespassed on his (the appellant) land. That the appellant made false allegation against him that he destroyed his pineapple which led to his arrest and that he was subsequently charged to Court for malicious damages. That it was the appellant who instigated the police to arraign him in Court for malicious damage. That the action of the Appellant was actuated by malice. That at the end of the trial he was discharged and acquitted.
The trial Court, in his judgment discountenanced with the processes filed by the appellant while granting the relief of the respondent in his claim.
The Appellant was dissatisfied and lodged an appeal against the judgment of the learned trial judge.
To argue the appeal, the Appellant formulated five issues for the just determination of this appeal thus:
(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- GROUND 4 AND 6.
(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? GROUND 5
(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- GROUNDS 1 and 7.
(4) Whether the Respondent has any evidence before the Court upon which the Court could grant the reliefs of the respondent- GROUND 3
(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. GROUND 2.
ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 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.”

To argue this issue, learned Appellant’s Counsel Mr Cletus Nnachetta referred to the evidence of Mr. Idowu Adejola who testified as DW1. The said DW1 testified that he deposed to a written statement on oath on the 23rd March 2012 and same admitted as Exhibit D1. The Appellant himself testified as DW2 and also stated that he deposed to a written statement on oath on 23rd March 2012. Nonetheless, the trial judge in his judgment disregarded both the statement of defence filed on the 23rd March 2012 and the Amended statement of defence and counter-claim filed on the 21st May 2013 including the evidence adduced in support thereof by DW1 & DW2.
He then contended that the learned trial judge cannot rightfully disregard both the original statement of defence and the Amended statement of defence and counter-claim filed by the Appellant as to do so will amount to a denial of fair-hearing to the Appellant. It is Mr Nnachetta’s submission that even if the learned trial judge for any reason chose to discountenance with the Amended statement of defence and counter-claim filed by the Appellant, he must of necessity fall back on the original statement of defence of the