Malicious Prosecution 101 Flashcards
(33 cards)
What is malicious prosecution?
According to KODINLIYE, malicious prosecution occurs when a person (the defendant) intentionally and without reasonable or probable cause initiates legal proceedings (usually criminal) against another person (the plaintiff), which eventually ends in the plaintiff’s favor and causes damage to their reputation, person, or property.
To succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution, what elements must the plaintiff prove?
In EDMUND CHUKWUEBUKA V. ANTHONY OKOLOCHA&ORS, it was stated that To succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:
1. Initiation of Prosecution: The defendant instituted or was actively involved in starting the legal action against the plaintiff.
2. Favorable Termination: The case ended in the plaintiff’s favor, such as through acquittal or dismissal.
3. Lack of Reasonable or Probable Cause: The defendant did not have a legitimate basis (no reasonable grounds) for bringing the charges.
4. Malice: The prosecution was carried out with malicious intent — not for justice but to harm the plaintiff.
5. Damages: The plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the prosecution, such as injury to their reputation, loss of liberty, or financial costs.
What must a plaintiff prove to succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution?
That the defendant initiated or instigated criminal proceedings against them.
Must the defendant personally conduct the prosecution to be liable for malicious prosecution?
No. It is enough if the defendant took steps that led to the prosecution, such as filing a complaint or insisting on the plaintiff’s guilt.
What actions by the defendant are sufficient to “set the law in motion”?
- Making a complaint to the police or magistrate
- Showing willingness to give evidence against the plaintiff
- Insisting the plaintiff committed an offence, causing summons to be issued
In Immeh v. Aruegbon, where did the plaintiff and defendant reside?
Plaintiff lived in Lagos; the defendant (and the plaintiff’s husband) lived in Benin City.
What was the real motive behind the prosecution in Inneh v. Aruegbon?
To get the plaintiff to appear in Benin so she could be served with an adultery summons.
What did the court decide in Immeh v. Aruegbon?
That the defendant’s actions amounted to malicious prosecution due to his improper motive and lack of probable cause.
In Obi v. Chukwu, why was the police officer not considered the prosecutor?
Because the D.P.P. filed criminal information under Section 340 CPA, making him the prosecutor, not the officer who made the complaint on oath.
Who becomes the prosecutor when criminal information is filed under Section 340 of the CPA?
The Director of Public Prosecutions (D.P.P.).
Can a person who only gave false information be regarded as the prosecutor in a malicious prosecution claim?
Yes, if the false information directly led to the prosecution.
In Balogun v. Amubikahun (1985), what was the motive for the false report?
To “teach the respondent a lesson” for stopping others from standing surety.
What did the court hold in Balogun v. Amubikahun regarding malicious prosecution?
That the false report with malicious intent amounted to malicious prosecution.
In Cassy v. Automobile V. Renart of Canada, does withdrawing the charge before a summons prevent liability for malicious prosecution?
No, the informant may still be liable.
Can someone be liable for malicious prosecution if the information was later withdrawn?
Yes, liability can still arise if the process had already commenced.
What common principle runs through Obi v. Chukwu, Balogun v. Amubikahun, and Cassy v. Automobile V. Renart?
Liability for malicious prosecution can attach to whoever initiates or sustains a prosecution through false or malicious action.
