LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

UBA & ORS v. OLADEJO (2021)

UBA & ORS v. OLADEJO

(2021)LCN/15685(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021

CA/AK/18/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Hamma Akawu Barka Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

  1. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA 2. EZEKIEL OLUSOLA AGBOOLA 3. AKINMEJI RIFUS APPELANT(S)

And

ADEKOYENI OLADEJO RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT A CAUSE OR MATTER CAN BE GLEANED BY A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE PLEADINGS FILED BY PARTIES

The law is elementary that a cause or matter can be gleaned by a close and careful examination of the pleadings filed by the parties.
A fortiori, the substantive law existing at the point in time a cause of action occurs given the determination of the action vis-a-vis the rights and obligations of the respective parties.
The claimant had been arrested for sundry offences allegedly committed and was subsequently arraigned before the Chief Magistrate Court Okitipupa in Charge MOK/202C/2006: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V. OLADEJO ADEKOYENI AND 2 ORS.
PER PEMU, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT SECTION 254 (C) (1) (B) OF THE CONSTITUTION PERTAINS TO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Section 254 (c) (1) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states:
“Relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Union Act, Labour Act, Employees’ Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to Labour Employment, Industrial Relations, Workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws.”
​From above, it is indicative that the provisions of Section 254(c) (1) of the 1999 Constitution only cover Acts or Laws mentioned in Section 254(c) (1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. These are matters arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Union Act, Labour Act, Employees’ Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to Labour Employment, and indeed industrial relations.
That Section of the Constitution does not pertain to malicious prosecution, assault, detinue or any liability in tort.
The infringement of the right of a person in his work place is not enough to confer jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court except where there is employment issue.
The case of the Respondent, being one for malicious prosecution, has nothing to do with Respondent’s condition of employment or contract of employment.
The High Court of a State is the appropriate forum seised with the jurisdiction to entertain the action. PER PEMU, J.C.A.

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Ondo State High Court of Justice, holden in Okitipupa delivered on the 7th of December, 2016 in suit no. HOK/60/2007.

FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF
The plaintiff (Respondent in this appeal) claimed against the Defendants (Respondents in this appeal) as follows:
“The Plaintiff claim against the Defendants jointly and severally is for the sum of one hundred million naira (N100,000,000.00) only being damages suffered on account of prosecuting maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, a criminal case of conspiracy and stealing against the claimant which terminated in his favour at the magistrate Court No. 1 Okitipupa within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court “ – pages 1-2 of the Record of Appeal.

As a result of alleged various acts of the Respondent which culminated in his arrest and subsequent prosecution, the claimant instituted the action at the High Court of Justice Okitipupa.

After the hearing of the case, the Court below in a reserved judgment delivered on the 7th of December, 2016, and contrary to the Respondent’s claim for N100 million damages for malicious prosecution without reasonable and probable cause, which terminated in his favour from the Defendants, particularly where the 1st Defendant is the employer of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, and they all acted in concert, entered judgment for the Respondent in the following terms viz:
“The sum of ten million naira (N10,000,000.00) only being damages suffered for unlawful arrest, detention and imprisonment of the claimant at Okitipupa Police Station cell from 7/9/2006 to 9/9/2006 on false and uninvestigated allegation of fraud at U.B.A Plc Ode-Aye branch amounting to N1,258,000.00 within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court” – pages 383-384 of the Record of Appeal.

The Appellants are dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court below and has appealed same by filing a Notice of Appeal on the 20th of December, 2016. – Pages 385 to 388 of the Record of Appeal. Same was amended by leave of this Honourable Court on the 17th of October, 2017. Deemed as amended on the 9th of October, 2019. It has five (5) Grounds of Appeal. The Appellants filed their brief of argument on the 14th of November, 2019 and same was deemed filed on the 4th of November, 2020. It was settled by Femi Sarumi Esq., (ChMC).

The Respondent’s brief of argument was filed on the 10th of November, 2020. It is settled by Omolegbon Odusola Esq.

On the 24th day of June, 2021, the parties adopted their respective briefs of argument.

The Appellants distilled three (3) issues for determination from the Grounds of Appeal. They are:
1. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THIS MATTER.
SEE: GROUND 1 OF THE AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL.
2. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RIGHTLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE EXHIBITS N, P-P12, Q-Q25 AND R-R34 AND PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THEM.
SEE: GROUND 2 AND 3 OF THE AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL.
3. WHETHER BY THE CLAIMS, PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE LED IN THIS MATTER, THE LOWER COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO HAVE AWARDED THE SUM OF N10,000,000.00 (TEN MILLION NAIRA) AS GENERAL DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL ARREST, DETENTION AND IMPRISONMENT WHEN SUCH RELIEF WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THIS MATTER.
SEE GROUND 4 AND 5 OF THE AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL.

The Respondent adopts the issues for determination proffered by the Appellants.

I shall determine this appeal based on the issues for determination distilled by the Appellants.

ISSUE NO. 1
The Appellants submit that the Respondent’s claim before the Court below is for damages for malicious prosecution and not unlawful arrest and detention as wrongly alleged in the judgment. Refers to the consequential further Amended Statement of Claim – Paragraph 28 thereof. The Consequential Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on the 3rd of February, 2014 pursuant to the order of the Court below made on the 28th January, 2014 at page 196 of the Record of Appeal states thus:
“Whereupon the Plaintiff claims jointly and serevally against the Defendants N100 million damages for malicious prosecution without reasonable and probable cause which terminated in his favour from the Defendants particularly where the 1st Defendant is the employer of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and they all acted in concert.”

Submit that the cause of action in this matter is not malicious prosecution simpliciter. That the Court below came to the conclusion without the consideration of Paragraphs 1, 2, 3(i) (ii) (iii) and (iv), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Consequential Further Amended Statement of Claim.

Submit that the cause of action arose in the course of service and employment of the Respondent with the 1st Appellant. That it is therefore not an action in malicious prosecution simpliciter.

That the Writ of Summon was filed on the 23rd of October, 2007, and not 16th of October, 2007 as stated by the Court below. 

That the substantive law existing at the point in time a cause of action occurred governs the determination of the said viz-a-viz the rights and obligations of the respective parties thereto. See ALAO V. AKANO (1988)1 NWLR (PT. 71) 431; OLUTOLA V. UNILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR. (PT. 905) 416 AT 469-470; AINA BEBHOLO V. EDO STATE UNIVERSITY WORKERS FARMERS MULT-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY & ORS. (2015) LPELR 24513 (CA).

That the Respondent’s cause of action arose from the false report made by the Appellants to the Police and their insistence on the transfer of the case from Okitipupa to Akure which led to his malicious prosecution.

That the Respondent by Exhibit “N” to 57 before the Chief Magistrate Court Okitipupa between November 2006 and 23rd July, 2007 when Chief Magistrate Akinrinsola of Chief Magistrate Court Okitipupa delivered judgment.

That the existing law as at the time of cause of action arose in November 2006 in the National Industrial Court Act 2006 whose commencement date is 14th June, 2006.

Submit that in deciding whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine a matter, both the law in force when the suit was commenced and the current state of law at the time of hearing must be considered.

Submit that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to continue to hear and deliver judgment in the matter after 2012.

Urges this Honourable Court to so hold, as the grounds proffered by the lower Court in assuming jurisdiction to hear the matter, are unfounded in law and in facts.

That since the alleged arrest and detention of the Respondent on the 7th of September, 2006 arose from his employment as the Branch Operation Manager of the 1st Appellant, they urge this Honourable Court to hold that the Court below lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

ISSUES 2 AND 3
In arguing these two issues, the Appellants submit that some documents were tendered and admitted for identification purposes. These are: IDIA, IDIB, IDIC, IDIE and IDIF respectively. But that the Court below admitted them as Exhibits “N”, P-P12, Q-Q25, R-R34 and S-57. Basing this admission of relevancy and whether the document has been pleaded by the party or parties.

Submit that for a document to be admissible in evidence, it must not only be relevant to the fact in issue but also admissible in law.

Submit that the documents admitted by the Court below were certified true copies of the charge sheet before the Chief Magistrate Court Okitipupa (Exhibit “N”), the record of proceedings between February, 2007 and July, 2007 (Exhibit P – P12; Q – Q2; and R – RJ4 and the judgment of the Chief Magistrate Court Okitipupa (Exhibit S – S7).

The Appellants submit that by the very nature of the exhibits, they are public documents. They should in law be certified to be admissible. See ARAKA V. EGBUE (2003) NWLR. (PT. 848) 1 AT 6.

That for a document to be admissible as the secondary evidence of a public document, the certified true copy of such document must fulfill the following conditions viz:
1. Payment of legal fees
2. The certificate must be dated
3. It must be subscribed by the certifying officer with his name and official title.
4. It must be sealed where such officer is authorized by law to make issue of a seal.
TABIK INVESTMENT LTD V. GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC. (2011) LPELR – 3131 (SC)

Submit that these conditions co-exist as non fulfillment of one renders the document inadmissible.

That Exhibit “N”, which is the criminal charge sheet in respect of the criminal matter before the Magistrate Court Okitipupa, forms part of Exhibit P – P12, Q – Q25 and R – R34 which are the entire proceedings before the Magistrate Court Okitipupa. That Exhibit “N” does not contain the date of the certification. That Exhibits P – P12 which is the proceedings from 20th February, 2007 does not contain the name of the certifying officer. That the last page of the said document, has the name of the certifying officer but is undated. That the document which has evidence of payment for 104 folio and date of payment bears no date when the document was certified. That Exhibits Q – Q25 which are the proceedings from 28th March, 2006 and proceedings from 5th February 2007 does contain the date of certification. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 23rd of July, 2007 which forms part of Exhibit Q – Q25 does not contain the name of the certifying Officer.

Urges this Honourable Court to reject these documents as their admission contravene the provisions of Section 104 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, which are the conditions precedent to the admissibly of the secondary evidence of a public document. That proper certification of public document is imperative.

They submit that the exhibits are not admissible in law, because the said exhibits which are proceedings in a criminal matter are not admissible in law in a subsequent civil matter. See ALHAJI KABIRU ABUBAKAR & ANOR V. JOHN JOSEPH & ANOR (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 432) 1065 AT 1103.

That Exhibits R – R34 containing the judgment of the Magistrate Court, Okitipupa was delivered on the 23rd of July, 2007. That the absence of the names of the certifying officer on the document makes it irregular and violates the provisions of Section 104(2) of the Evidence Act 2011. That some of these documents were not certified as required by law, they were wrongly admitted in evidence. That same should be expunged by this Honourable Court.

That the Court below used an inadmissible evidence as the basis for his judgment. That the Court cannot admit inadmissible evidence.

Regarding issue no. 3, the Appellants submit that the question that calls for resolution is whether by the pleadings and evidence led by the Respondent before the Court below, the Respondent successfully proved malicious prosecution.

Submit that by the pleadings and evidence of the Respondent before the lower Court, the claimant failed to prove the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution. That there is nothing in the pleadings and evidence to show that the Appellant set in motion the law leading to a criminal charge against him.

That there is nothing on record to show the way and manner the Respondent was arrested by officers from Ode-Aye Police Station.

That the averment of the Respondent at Pages 316 – 323 and 326 – 328 of the Record of Appeal reveals that there is no oral evidence in support of paragraph 16 of the Consequential Further Amended Statement of Claim. That pleading without evidence in support goes to no issue. SeeRAJCO INTERNATIONAL LTD. V. LE CAVALIER MOTEL AND RESTAURANTS LTD. (2016) LPELR – 40082 (CA).

Submit that the burden is on the Respondent to show how the officers from Ode-Aye Police Station came to arrest him and the role played by the Appellants.

That the Respondent could not prove that the petition emanated from the 1st Appellant. That the petition is a certified copy.

That the Respondent by his own pleadings and evidence did aver that his prosecution arose from the lost fund belonging to Unity Secondary School Ode-Aye. That this loss is a reasonable reason for the prosecution of the Respondent.

That the malice required in malicious prosecution is “honest belief”. That the Respondent failed to prove this ingredient.

That it is not the duty of a Court to grant reliefs not claimed. See EAGLE SUPER PACK (NIG.) LTD V. ACB PLC. (2006) 19 NWLR (PT. 1013) 20.
Urges Court to allow the appeal.

RESOLUTION
ISSUE NO. 1
The law is elementary that a cause or matter can be gleaned by a close and careful examination of the pleadings filed by the parties.

A fortiori, the substantive law existing at the point in time a cause of action occurs given the determination of the action vis-a-vis the rights and obligations of the respective parties.

The claimant had been arrested for sundry offences allegedly committed and was subsequently arraigned before the Chief Magistrate Court Okitipupa in Charge MOK/202C/2006: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V. OLADEJO ADEKOYENI AND 2 ORS.

He had jumped bail which led to his arrest and arraignment.

It is against his arrest and subsequent prosecution that the claimant instituted an action in Suit HOK/60/2007: ADEKOYENI OLADEJO V. UBA PLC. AND ORS before the High Court of Justice Okitipupa on the 23rd of December, 2007. The claim was against the Defendants jointly and severally for the sum of one hundred million naira (N100,000,000.00) only being damages suffered on account of prosecuting maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause a criminal case of conspiracy and stealing against the Plaintiff which terminated in his favour and the trial resulted in damage to his reputation person and freedom at the Magistrate Court No. 1 Okitipupa within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.  Pages 1 and 2 of the Record of Appeal.

The Appellants, in Paragraph 3.02 of their brief of argument submits that the cause of action in this matter is not malicious prosecution simpliciter. That may be true, but the question is what can be gleaned from the Statement of Claim in the suit, the subject matter of this appeal?

Simply put, the complaint of the Appellants is that the case of Respondent did not fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Ondo State, but within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.

The argument of the Appellants is that the relationship between the Appellants and the Respondent being that of employer and employee, whatever that happens between them in the course of the employment, should be considered as matters relating to, or connecting to the Respondent’s employment, and therefore only the National Industrial Court can hear and determine such matter as provided for under the provisions of Section 254 (c) (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The Respondent had argued that the fact that the action which caused the malicious prosecution of the Respondent arose out of working place activities does not ipso facto make the Respondent’s case fall within the situations referred to in Section 254(c)(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

Let me reproduce verbatim the provisions of Section 254(c)(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 viz:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 251, 257 and 272 and anything contained in the constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters:
a. Relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, workers and matters incidental thereto or connected there with.”

It is apparent from the pleadings that the Respondent was indicted for dishonest behaviour, conspiracy and stealing as a result of which he was prosecuted.
That brings the matter, being a criminal matter within the scope and jurisdiction of the High Court and not the National Industrial Court.
A painstaking perusal of the provisions of Section 254 (c) (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, seems to me that the provisions confers on the National Industrial Court jurisdiction over trade union, and labour matters, employment law rules. It does not pertain to criminal matters or tort. 
Section 254 (c) (1) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states:
“Relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Union Act, Labour Act, Employees’ Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to Labour Employment, Industrial Relations, Workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws.”
​From above, it is indicative that the provisions of Section 254(c) (1) of the 1999 Constitution only cover Acts or Laws mentioned in Section 254(c) (1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. These are matters arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Union Act, Labour Act, Employees’ Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to Labour Employment, and indeed industrial relations.
That Section of the Constitution does not pertain to malicious prosecution, assault, detinue or any liability in tort.
The infringement of the right of a person in his work place is not enough to confer jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court except where there is employment issue.
The case of the Respondent, being one for malicious prosecution, has nothing to do with Respondent’s condition of employment or contract of employment.
The High Court of a State is the appropriate forum seised with the jurisdiction to entertain the action.

The answer to issue no. 1 is necessarily in the affirmative, as the High Court it is, that has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the subject matter of this appeal.

This issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.

ISSUE NO. 2
It is my view that the Court below rightly admitted in evidence Exhibits N, P – P12, Q – Q25 and R – R34.

It is the Appellants’ contention that these documents were admitted as Exhibits by the Court below in the course of writing his judgment. That the documents being public documents were not duly certified in accordance with Section 104(2) of the Evidence Act 2011.

The Appellants submit that the exhibits were not properly certified on some of the documents and date of certification. The Appellants submit that the public Officer who certified Exhibit “N” and P – P12 did not date them and also did not write his name on exhibits, part of Exhibits P – P12 and Exhibits Q – Q25. The Appellants seek that these documents be expunged as they are inadmissible.

From records, it shows that the name of the certifying public officer was omitted on part of Exhibits P – P12 and Exhibits Q – Q25 and the date of certification of Exhibits “N”, P – P12 was omitted.

But PW2 and PW3, (Court Officials) testified that they certified the documents. PW2 and PW3 were subpoenaed to give evidence to the fact that they were the public Officers who certified Exhibits “N”, P – P12, Q – R34 – Q25 and R – R34.

The evidence of PW2 and PW3 that they certified the documents, and had their names on as the public officers who certified Exhibit Q – Q25 had cured the omissions which the Appellants had complained of. The witness statement on oath of PW2 and PW3 is reflected at pages 197 to 198 of the Record.

This cured whatever irregularities that obtained in Exhibits P – P12, Q – Q25 and R – R34, and I so hold.

The admissibility of the exhibits did not adversely affect the judgment neither did it occasion miscarriage of justice to the Appellants.

This issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants.

ISSUE NO. 3
Where the basis for attacking a judgment is false or non – existent, the ground of appeal based on same will be incompetent. See CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF VS. ADHEKEGBA (2009) 13 NWLR (PT. 1158) 332.

The Respondent submits that issue no. 3 as couched by the Appellants is grossly incompetent. An issue not distilled from a ground of appeal is incompetent and same is liable to be struck out.
1. ODEH VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIG. (2008) 6 SCM. 162.
2. UNITY BANK PLC. AND ANOR. VS. BOUARI (2008) 2 SCM 193.

In this present case grounds 4 and 5 where issue 3 is distilled from are complaints regarding excessive amount awarded as damages, and lack of adequate evaluation of evidence.

Issue no. 3 in the Appellants’ issues for determination states thus:
“WHETHER BY THE CLAIMS, PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE LED IN THIS MATTER, THE LOWER COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO HAVE AWARDED THE SUM OF N10,000,000.00 (TEN MILLION NAIRA) AS GENERAL DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL ARREST, DETENTION AND IMPRISONMENT WHEN SUCH RELIEF WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THIS MATTER.” (SEE GROUNDS 4 AND 5 OF THE AMENDED GROUND OF APPEAL).

Parties and the Court are bound by the reliefs claimed by a party. Awarding the sum not claimed amounted to the Court granting a relief not claimed by a party. See EAGLE SUPER PACK (NIG.) LTD. V. ACB PLC (2006) 19 NWLR (PT. 1031) 20 AND OSUJI V. EKEOCHA(2009) LPELR 28161 AT 44.
A Court is bound to adjudicate between the parties on the basis of claims formulated by them.

The Court below was clearly in error to grant a relief not claimed by the Respondent.
Issue No. 3 was distilled from the original Grounds 4 and 5.

Ground 4 of the original Notice of Appeal deals with the error of the Court below, by awarding damages in cases of tort of malicious prosecution, without taking into account relevant matters, thereby awarding a ridiculous sum of N50,000.000.00 (Fifty million Naira) damages for malicious prosecution.

Ground no. 5 is the omnibus ground.

But in an amended Notice of Appeal filed on the 17th of October, 2017 but deemed on the 9th of October, 2019, grounds 4 became the omnibus ground while ground 5 talked about the wrongful award of N10,000,000.00 (ten million naira) only in damages for unlawful arrest detention and imprisonment.

In paragraph 28 of the Amended Statement of Claim filed on the 22nd of July, 2010, the Claimant claims as follows:
PARA 28 “whereupon the Plaintiff claims jointly and severally against the Defendants N100. Million days for malicious prosecution without reasonable and probable cause which terminated in his favour from the Defendants particularly where the 1st Defendant is the employer of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and they all acted in concert.
See page 168 of the Record of Appeal.

In its judgment delivered on the 7th of December, 2010, the Court below adjudged thus:
“Judgment is hereby granted to the claimant against the Defendants jointly and severally as follow:
HOK/60/2007: the sum of Ten million (N10,000,000.00) only being damages suffered for unlawful arrest, determination and imprisonment of the claimant at Okitipupa Police Station cell from 7/9/2006 to 9/9/2006 as false and uninvestigated allegation of fraud at U.B.A. Plc Ode-Aye branch amounting to N1, 258,000.00 within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
HOK/67/06: the sum of fifty million naira (N50,000,000.00) only being damages suffered on account of prosecuting maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, a criminal case of conspiracy and stealing against the claimant which terminated in his favour at the Magistrate Court No. 1 Okitipupa within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court – …”
Pages 383 – 384 of the Record of Appeal.

Pertinent to note that the Court awarded damages both for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. More so, the Appellants in their paragraph 5.05 of their brief of argument submit that the Respondent failed to prove the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution, and contrary to the claim of the Respondent.

The Court, having found that the Appellants were liable for malicious prosecution against the Respondent rightly in my view, was right to have awarded damages against the Appellants though wrongly couched.

The Court below was right to have awarded a lower sum in the exercise of its discretion.

This issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants.
The appeal is devoid of merit and same is dismissed.

By virtue of the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, CAP C37, LFN 2004, this Court has power to correct the slip/error made by the lower Court.
Accordingly, I hereby order as follows: that
“The sum of Ten million Naira (N10,000,000.00) shall be and is hereby awarded against the Appellants only being damages suffered on account of prosecuting maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, a criminal case of conspiracy and stealing against the claimant/Respondent which terminated in his favour at the Magistrate Court No. 1 Okitipupa within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. N500,000.00 cost in favour of the claimant/Respondent.”
N200,000.00 costs in favour of the Respondent, in respect of the present appeal.

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: I agree.

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Rita Nosakhare Pemu, J.C.A.
I agree.

Appearances:

Femi Sarumi, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Omolegbon Odunola, Esq. For Respondent(s)