Malicious Prosecution

Thus for a defendant to be shown to have set the criminal law in motion against a plaintiff, it must be proved by evidence that the defendant had in any manner directly influenced the police in the decision to charge the plaintiff to Court on the complaint made.
Accordingly, an action for malicious prosecution will not lie against a person who merely gave an information to the police by a report or complaint of the commission of an offence which led the police on their own initiative to arrest, and eventually charge another to Court after their investigation of the complaint. The position is also the same in respect of a report or complaint made to the police where a particular person is named (as in this present appeal) as the person found spraying herbicides on farm crops, and the person is subsequently arrested, charged and prosecuted by the police on their own volition. In all these situation, a defendant can not be said to have been instrumental or actively set the law in motion for the prosecution because the police had the option and liberty to deal with the matter with the outcome of their investigations of the complaint made to them. If the evidence did not show that the defendant influenced the police in any way in the decision to prosecute a plaintiff, then the prosecution cannot and will not properly be attributable to the defendant, but to the police. See BALOGUN V. AMUBIKAHUN (SUPRA), NWADINOBI V. BOTU (2000) 9 NWLR (PT 672) 220, SPDC V. OLAREWAJU (2002) 16 NWLR (PT 792) 38, ADEYEMO V. AKINTOLA (2004) 12 NWLR (PT 887) 390, OJO V. LASISI(SUPRA)

For the purposes of the claim for malicious prosecution, to be liable, a defendant must be actively instrumental in setting the law in motion for the prosecution of plaintiff. Within the context, to prosecute is to deliberately and actively initiate or instigate by way of a direct appeal to or pressure on a person with judicial authority with regard to a complaint or report made that the plaintiff be charged and put to trial.