OLODO & ORS v. JOSHUA
(2020)LCN/15340(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, July 16, 2020
CA/PH/414/2016
RATIO
FALSE IMPRISONMENT: WHETHER AN ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WHO MALICIOUSLY GAVE FALSE INFORMATION TO THE POLICE AND CAUSED ANOTHER PERSON TO BE ARRESTED OR WRONGFULLY DETAINED.
The law is trite on what false imprisonment is. An action can be against a private individual who maliciously gave false information to the Police and caused another person to be arrested or wrongfully detained. It is a tort. In OKAFOR VS. ABUMOFUANI (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1525) p.117, MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC has this to say:
“It is a correct representation of the law that if a report as in this case is made to the Police which has been found to be totally false, malicious and without foundation it is the maker of the report that is liable in damages to the Plaintiff for false imprisonment. This is because it is the maker of the report which complaint ignited the action of detention carried out by the Police that does not bring in the Police as a party to the action in the false report and imprisonment.”
However, action will not lie against an individual who merely gave information to the Police which led the Police in the exercise of their discretion to arrest a suspect. See ISHENO VS. JULIUS BERGER (NIG) PLC (2008) 6 NWLR (pt. 1084) p. 582. PER TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Court of Appeal
Tunde Oyebanji Awotoye Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. LUCKY NEWMAN OLODO 2. UKPENYA NEWMAN 3. ONUMEYA NEWMAN 4. OMOBONZE JORAM 5. BOMA ALEX APPELANT(S)
And
CHIEF UMEME JOSHUA RESPONDENT(S)
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is the Judgment in respect of the Appeal filed by the Appellants who were Claimants in the Court below, against the Judgment of Bayelsa State High Court delivered on 27th day of June, 2016 in Suit No: YHC/129/2014.
The Claimants had instituted an action against the Defendant claiming as per paragraph 10 of their Amended Statement of Claim thus:
“And the Claimants on the footing of aggravated damages as follows:
1. N70,000.000.00 being aggravated damages for all or any of the tortuous acts of false imprisonment and injurious falsehood committed by the Defendant against the Claimants or same amounts as damages per se.
2. An injunction to restrain the Defendant whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise from however:
(a) making any false accusation against any of the Claimants: and
(b) causing any of the Claimants to be wrongfully arrested and detained on a false charge.”
The Defendant replied by filing a Statement of Defence and a Counter Claim. The Claimant in response filed Reply to the Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim.
After hearing the parties the learned trial Judge found inter-alia thus:
Although it could be insinuated that the Defendant was actuated by malice given the pending dispute between the Large Izifa Family and the Olodo Family, that can only remain in the realm of conjecture. The action of the Defendant to my mind in the prevailing circumstances in reporting the action of the Claimants to the Police cannot be said to unreasonable and actuated by malice.
To my mind the Claimants have not discharged the two key ingredients necessary in the tort of malicious injurious falsehood.
On the issue of damages, I do not know what quantifiable damages the Claimants could be said to have suffered. No evidence whatsoever was led to show what they lost as a result of the report made by the Defendant to the Police. The much they claimed is that they were detained for some hours at the Police Station and ridiculed by their arrest. If their arrest was mainly to report to the Police Station to state their case after which they were released on bail the same day, how does that translate to damages they suffered? There is no insinuation that because of their arrest they suffered any other damages apart from alleged shock and mental anguish. They were not accused of committing any heinous crime or fraud. It was only alleged that their conduct on that day in visiting the workers of Schlumberger and stopping them from work amounts to conduct likely to cause a breach of peace. Apart from the inconvenience of visiting the Police Station until they were granted bail the same day, I do not see any quantifiable damages they suffered.
From the above, the Claimants have failed to prove all the ingredients of the tort of malicious or injurious falsehood. Their Claim under that head must fail.
…. From the above, the Claim for False Imprisonment will also fail as I have already held that the report made to the Police by the Defendant was substantially true and that there is no evidence that it was actuated by malice. There is no proof that it was made without any probable or reasonable cause.
From the foregoing the Claim of the Claimants must fail and it is hereby dismissed.”
The learned trial Judge also dismissed the Counter Claim of the Defendant.
It is against the above decision that the Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal containing five Grounds of Appeal.
After transmission of Record of Appeal to this Court parties filed and exchanged Briefs of Argument.
SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
AMENDED APPELLANTS’ BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
Counsel for the Appellants, John Herbert Igbikiberesima, Esq., filed an Amended Appellants’ Brief dated the 21st day of February, 2018, filed on the 22nd day of February, 2018 and deemed on the 29th day of November, 2018. Counsel for the Appellants raised an issue for determination which is:
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Appellants failed to prove their claims having regard to the facts placed before him, the state of the law, the approach adopted and his conclusions in relation to the ingredients necessary to ground a claim for damages for injurious falsehood and/or false imprisonment? (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).
ARGUMENT
Counsel for the Appellants contended that the learned trial Judge’s conclusion in holding that the accusation made by the Respondent against the Appellants is untrue is erroneous and cannot be justified by law, the facts pleaded or the approach adopted is arising at the conclusion. That the accusation against the Appellants set out in Exhibit A,PP. 1-10 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the evidence of the 1st – 5th Appellants who testified as CW1, CW2, CW3, CW4 and CW5, PP.3, 14 and 18 of the Respondent’s written deposition at Pg. 76-78 of the record, the Respondent’s averment in PP. 2(6)k, 3 and 7 of the Statement of defence, the Respondent’s DW1’s admission under Cross-examination and in particular P.234L.1 – P.235L.19 of the record, Exhibit B and that the Respondent admitted that he accused the Appellants of a Criminal offence “Conduct likely to cause a breach”. That both parties agree that on account of the allegation, the Appellants were arrested and detained. That the Appellants would not have suffered all of these if the Respondent did not make the report contained in Exhibits A-B. That the liberty of the Plaintiff has been interfered with and damages should be given to vindicate the Plaintiff’s right. Counsel referred to the case of Okonkwo v. Ogbogu (1996), 4 SCNJ 190, per Ogwuegbu, JSC. Counsel also cited the case of Newbreed Organizational Ltd V. Erhomosele (2006) 5 NWLR (pt. 979) 499, 518, 526-527, 538-543, Okonkwo v. Ogbogu (1996) 4 SCNJ 190, 206-208 as well as the points raised before the learned trial Judge in the Appellants written address particularly at P.166 L.5 -P.198 L.22. That the learned trial Judge had sufficient evidence in favour of the Appellants but proceeded to hold that allegation of Crime against the Appellants cannot be said to be untrue and that the Appellants failed to show any quantifiable damage suffered by them.
Counsel submitted that an examination of the learned trial Judge’s judgment particularly P.248 L.255, L.13 of the record shows that the conclusions are avoidable errors when the law provides a correct and justifying basis upon which the learned trial Judge should have relied. That the ingredients of the tort of injurious falsehood was set out by the learned trial Judge at P.244, L.1-6 of the record even though he relied on an electronic device. Counsel urged the Court to follow the accurate and complete reporting found in the Nigeria Weekly Law Report. Counsel cited the case of Newbreed Organization Ltd V. Erhomosele (2006) 5 NWLR (pt. 979) 499, 503, 518, 539-543. Counsel urged the Court to follow their Lordship’s Ejiwunmi and Ogbuagu, JJSC (as they then were) on the point in relation to the instant matter. That the learned trial Judge knew the allegation complained of and that the parties in their respective pleadings have joined issues. That it remains an allegation of crime which has arisen in a civil proceeding and is directly in issue. That by the provision of S.135(1-2) of Evidence Act, 2011, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof is upon the Respondent who asserted that the Appellants committed an offence. That the Respondent admitted under cross-examination that he was not present at the scene of the alleged crime at the time the Appellants committed the offence. That the scene was far away from his house where he was at the time. That the Respondent further alleged that three persons-Okinsonpie Joshua (Respondent’s younger brother), Livewell Thompson and Mali Jonah, whom he claimed to have sent to work with Schlumberger were the ones who alerted him of the Appellants conduct. That under cross-examination, the Respondent admitted that the informants did not make a statement with him at the Police Station nor did he mention their names to the Police. That none of them testified in Court on his behalf and that he testified alone as DW1. That in the Respondent’s Statement of defence and written allegation, he admitted making the allegation of crime against the Appellants. That the leaned trial Judge in his judgment and particularly at P.248, L.8-P.254L.12 found that the Respondent was not present at the scene and so could not have known what transpired there. That the Respondent had not led any form of direct evidence to support his allegations and so his evidence remains inadmissible having regard to the provision of S.37 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and that the learned trial Judge ought to have so found and so erred by not doing so. Counsel to the Appellants cited the case of Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR (pt. 1) per Obaseki, JSC on the Appellants’ contention that the allegation being one of crime which is directly in issue, and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt even though it arose from a civil matter.
Counsel further contended that on P.249 L.12 – P.251 L.5, rather than following the legal position placed before him, the learned trial Judge proceeded to wrongly place the onus of proving that the Respondent was informed by three persons of the facts he alleged against the Appellants. That the learned trial Judge purported to be relying on Appellants Statement of Claim which did not allege that work stopped and continued after there was an amicable agreement. That the Appellants Amended Statement of Claim only showed that the Appellants met with representatives of Schlumberger and informed them that members of their family were not met for necessary arrangements before commencement of work and the representatives apologized for the lapses but that they would get in touch with the Appellants’ family for the necessary steps to be taken and then commence work. That the meeting ended on a cordial note and they exchanged phone numbers but the Respondent who was not there with them went ahead to make the allegations complained of and got the Police to arrest and detain them. That the averments in PP.7 of the Amended Statement of Claim had been misquoted and used in favour of the Respondent. That the Respondent’s entire pleadings ought to have been rejected and struck out being an imaginary hearsay evidence. He referred the Court to Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and cited the case of Ejimadu v. Delta Freez Ltd 2007 13 NWLR (pt. 1050) 96, 110-111.
Counsel submitted that it is the position of the law that the Court is required to confine itself to what the parties placed before it for Adjudication. That there is no averment in the Appellants’ Amended Statement of Claim when the Appellants stopped an ongoing work. It was the company workers who seeing that necessary steps had been taken by Shell Petroleum Company Ltd opted to get back and commence work after necessary steps have been taken. That the Respondent having failed to produce those whom he claimed informed him of the allegation of crime to testify in Court constitutes a valid ground for the learned trial Judge to have exercised his power under Section 167(d) Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel urged the Court to make the presumption under S.167(d) Evidence Act, 2011 and hold that the Respondent has failed to prove the allegation of crime. Counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge in a further bid to find in favour of the Respondent proceeded in his judgment particularly at P.122 L.7 – P.254 L.12 to hold in the absence of evidence that there exists tension between the two parties over right of ownership to the land in dispute. That any attempt by the Respondent or the Defendants larger Izifa family to confront the Appellants on their mission to visit the workers on the land in dispute could have escalated into a crisis. Counsel urged that these Statements were rooted in the speculations and ought not to be used by him to find in favour of the Respondent whose legal duty it is to lead credible evidence to establish that the allegation of crime is true. That it is not the duty of the learned trial Judge to delve into the arena of combat as he did. Counsel cited the cases of Elike v. Nwakwoala (1984) 12 SC 301, 312 L.14-23, 324 L.19-325 L.6, Lemminkainen OY v. Sodipo (1985), 1 SC 197, 217, Egonu v. Egonu (1978) 11 SC 111. Counsel further submitted that the learned trial Judge held in part of his judgment that particularly at P.254 L.3-4 of the record that the action of the Defendant in the prevailing circumstances in reporting the action of the Claimants to the Police cannot be said to be unreasonable and actuated by malice. That such conclusion by the learned trial Judge has no legal or factual basis in support. That from the facts presented before the learned trial Judge and the Supreme Court’s decision on the points canvassed and in particular, the decision in Newbreed organization Ltd v. Erhomosele (2006), 5 NWLR (pt. 974) 499 538-548 per Ejiwunmi and Ogbuage, JJSC, the learned trial Judge was in error in holding that the false accusation was not maliciously published by the Respondent against the Appellants. Counsel urged my Lords to so hold.
Counsel further argued that the learned trial Judge on P.254 L.13-P.13 of the record held that he could not know what quantifiable damages the Appellants could be said to have suffered, and hold that no evidence was led to show the Appellants’ cost as a result of the report to the Police. That the learned trial Judge went further to hold that the Appellants’ claimed they were detained for hours and ridiculed by their arrest and he queried how the arrest could translate to damages they suffered, if their arrest was mainly to report to the Police Station to state their case after which they were released on bail the same day. That the only damage they suffered was the alleged shock and mental shock.
Counsel further stated that the learned trial Judge ignored the facts led in evidence by the Appellants through their respective written depositions and their evidence under cross-examination which were not assailed under cross-examination. That the unassailed evidence are sufficient to hold that all of the Appellants proved by uncontroverted evidence that they suffered damage and are entitled to judgment. Counsel cited the case Okonkwo v. Ogbogu(1996) 4 SCNJ 190, 204-208.
Counsel relying on the same authority and those canvassed at the lower Court submitted that the Appellants case for false imprisonment is maintainable on the same facts that was canvassed in support of the claims for injurious falsehood. Counsel urged the Court to examine the facts on record, the Appellants arguments on P.186 L.5- P.200 L.11 and hold that on same facts and authorities, the Appellants have proved their claims for damages for injurious falsehood and false imprisonment and the injunctive Orders claimed. Counsel referred the Court to the contributions of their Lordships Ogwuegbu and Kitigi, JJSC (as they then were) on P.204-208 of 1996, 4 SCNJ 190, and also Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
RESPONDENT’S AMENDED BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
Counsel to the Respondent I. I. Evans, Esq., filed a Respondent’s brief on 6/12/2018 wherein he raised one issue for determination from the five Grounds of Appeal to wit:
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the Appellants’ claim.
ARGUMENT:
In arguing this sole issue, Respondent’s Counsel submitted that a party who sues another for injurious falsehood must prove the existence of three elements in order to succeed. That these three elements are:
(i) That the words complained of were untrue.
(ii) That they were published maliciously.
(iii) That the Plaintiff has thereby been caused damage.
He relied on the Newbreed Organization Ltd vs. Erhomosele (2006), 5 NWLR (pt. 974) 499. Counsel referred to the definition of the tort of injurious falsehood in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Taher (2014) 1 NWLR (pt. 1393) 137 and then submitted that to prove a tort of injurious falsehood, the Claimant must prove that the Statement complained about must be false an injure the character of the Claimant. With respect to circumstances that can lead to an imputation of Conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, Counsel referred to the guide contained in Clerk & Lindsel on torts, 15th Edition, paragraph 14.33, at page 676. Counsel also relied on Ingle vs. Bell (1836) 1 M & W 516, COHEN V. Huskisson (1837) 2 M & W 477, Webster vs. Watts (1847) 11 QB 311.
Counsel submitted that the pleadings of the Respondent particularly paragraphs 2(e), (f) and (g) of the Statement of defence, page 71 of the record, their complaints to the Police was that the Appellants claimed ownership of AZIGENE LAND which had been adjudged by the Supreme Court to belong to the Respondent. In furtherance to that claim, they approached Schlumberger Ltd that was working on the land and tried to impose themselves on the company as if the said land belongs to the Appellants. The Appellants stopped the Company which had entered the land with the consent of the Respondent from working therein. Counsel relied on Appellants’’ pleadings particularly paragraph 7 of the Amended Statement of Claims and also the evidence of CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW5 to corroborate the facts state herein.
Counsel submitted that on the basis of the facts canvassed above, the Appellants did not satisfy any of the ingredients of injurious falsehood set out above, that this is because the words complained of are true since the Appellants falsely paraded themselves as the owner of the land and made the company to stop dealing with the real owners of the land. That the Respondent reasonably believed that the behaviour of the Appellants would have caused a breach of the peace and so reported the matter to the Police.
With respect to malicious publication, Counsel relied on paragraph (P) of the Statement of Defence (page 72 of the records) to argue that the report made to the Police was not malicious because it was made to ensure that peace and order reigns.
On proof of damage Counsel submitted that Appellants failed to prove this. He relied on the fact that from the evidence of the Appellants, all that the Respondent did was to report to the Police and the Police invaded the Appellants for a few hours. That the complaint ultimately led to an undertaking by both parties to keep the peace. Counsel submitted that an invitation by the Police pursuant to an investigation does not amount to injury in law. He relied on the cases of ALMUSTAPHA VS. STATE (2013) 17 NWLR (pt. 1383) 350, ATAKPA VS. EBETOR (2015) 3 NWLR (pt. 1447) 549 wherein the Court emphasized the right of the Police as enshrined in Section 4 of the Police Act.
Counsel further submitted that the Appellants were not able to establish false imprisonment. He defines false imprisonment as the Intentional Instigation of the arrest and detention of a citizen without probable or lawful cause. Counsel cited the case of BORNU STATE GOVERNMENT VS. ASHIEK (2007) ALL FWLR (pt. 353), UDEAGHA VS. NWOGWUGWU (2013) LPELR 21819; GUSAU VS. UMEZURIKE (2012) 28 WRN 111 and OKONKWO VS. OGBOGU (1996) 5 NWLR (pt. 499) 420. Counsel also referred to the description of False Imprisonment by this Court in U.A.C OF NIG PLC VS. SOBODU (2007) 6 (pt. 1030), 368.
On the strength of these authorities, Counsel invited this Court to uphold the findings of the Lower Court at page 257, Lines 3-7 of the record of appeal.
Counsel argued that an invitation by the Police for an Interrogation that lasted two hours during which the Police used their discretion to interrogate the Appellants cannot amount to false imprisonment. Counsel relied on VITA CONSTRUCTION LTD VS. BRANCO RHODES (2013) ALL FWLR (pt. 664) 129, MANDILAS & KARABERIS LTD VS. APENA (1969) ALL NLR 382, NWADINOBI VS. BOTU (2000) 9 NWLR (pt. 672), 220 and DANBY V. BEADSLEY (1880) 43 L.T.R 603. Counsel specifically referred to pages 386-387 in MANDILAS & KARABERIS LTD VS. APENA (supra).
Counsel reminded the Court that the Court of Appeal does not interfere with the findings of fact and evaluation of evidence by the trial Court. Counsel made reference to NDULUE V. OJIAKOR (2013) 8 NWLR (pt. 1356) 311, HUSSENI V. MOHAMMED (2015) 3 NWLR (pt. 1445) 100, OKOLO VS. UZOKA (1978) 4 SC 77, WOLUCHEM V. GUDI (1981) 5 SC 291 and ODI VS.IYALA (2004) 8 NWLR (pt. 875) 283.
Counsel quoted the dicta of Aldgoa, JSC at page 399 paragraphs C-F in NDULUE V. OJIAKOR (supra).
Counsel contended that the Appellants’ Counsel contention at paragraph 6.05, pages 25-28 of the brief of Argument that the lower Court was wrong in failing to award damages was misconceived. He relied on ANAMBRA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION AUTHORITY VS. EKWENEM (2009) ALL FWLR (pt. 491) 828 R.4 at 859-860 to contend that damages are only awarded for a wrong that the law recognizes.
Counsel contended that civil cases are won on a balance of probabilities. He relied on AFRILEC LTD VS. LEE (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 699) 1178, AGU VS. NNADI (2002) 18 NWLR (pt. 798), 103, MOGAJI VS. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91 and KAIYAOJA VS. EGUNLA (1974) 17 SC 55.
Counsel then submitted that on a balance of probabilities, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the Appellants’ claim. Counsel then prayed this Court to affirm the Judgment of the lower Court.
APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF
The Appellants’ Counsel filed a reply brief dated 29th January, 2018 and filed on 29th January, 2018 wherein he contested that the elements of injurious falsehood are as laid down by the Supreme Court in Newbreed Organization Ltd vs. Eromosele (2006) 5 NWLR (pt. 974) 499, 538-548 and not as stated by Counsel to the Respondent. He contended that the Respondent did not witness the events he pleaded and gave evidence on and so the only credible evidence is that of the Appellants.
On damages, Counsel prayed this Court to discountenance the argument of Counsel to the Respondent and rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ogbogu v. Okonkwo (1996) 4 SCNLR 190 at 204-208.
Counsel also cited the unreported decision of this Court in Appeal No. CA/PH/420/2014 Owoi v. Asime Peter in praying this Court to set aside the Judgment of the lower Court.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I have deeply considered the submissions of learned Counsel on both sides as well as the contents of the Record of Appeal.
Both Counsel in their respective Briefs of Argument identified one issue for determination in this Appeal.
I shall adopt the issue as couched by the learned Appellants’ Counsel being Counsel for the aggrieved as there is no cross-appeal by the Respondent.
SOLE ISSUE
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Appellants failed to prove their claims having regard to the facts placed before him, the state of the law, the approach adopted and his conclusions in relation to the ingredients necessary to ground a claim for damages for injurious falsehood and/or false imprisonment?
Resolving this sole issue becomes easier when viewed in the light of the facts of this case now on appeal as captured below:
The Defendant and the Claimants are the same extended family … Izifa family. The Claimants however, are from a section of the family claiming the land on which the firm of Schlumberger worked as their own exclusively. The Izifa family (extended family) is also claiming the exclusive right to the said land.
With the consent of Izifa family (excluding the Claimants) Schlumberger went to work on the land in question.
The Claimants, aggrieved by this went to the site where Schlumberger worked to confront or challenge its staff.
Though the Defendant was not at the scene, he got a report and wrote a petition to the Police and made a Written Statement at the Police Station as follows:
“THE NIGERIAN POLICE”
STATEMENT OF WITNESS/ACCUSED
AKENFA POLICE STATION YENAGOA PROVINCE
NAME Chief Umeme Joshua NATIONALITY/TRIBE…… Epie
AGE: 42yrs OCCUPATION Business SEX Male RELIGION Christian
ADDRESS Akenfa 111 Epie Yenagoa
TEL NO: 07035555740
I, voluntarily elect to state as follows:-
I, Chief Umeme Joshua a native of Akenfa Epie born into Izifa compound and also the Compound Chief as at 2011, ever since I have been operating as the Compound Chief of Izifa, about a week ago Schlumberger a Servicing Company to SHELL came to the Community Chief H. R. H. Isiya Albert notify him of their intention at WELL 10 Oil. This Oil WELL are within Izifa Compounds Land. The Highness Chief Isiya Albert called me Chief Umeme Joshua and I came and we both agreed on the numbers of the people or persons to be employed, which we in turn appoint Mr. Livewell Thompson, Mr. Okisonifien Joshua and Mali ChukwuJoram, to go and work with the company. Today being 9th June, 2014 Stumberger Company called that they are mobilizing to site that is WELL 10 Oil WELL. As it stand a unit in Tobo family called Olodo group led by Mr. Onumeya Newman, Ukpenya Newmaan. Lucky Newman Omobonze Joram, OfiemuyaJoram, Boma Alex and many more this morning went there to stop the company from working and also mount a blockage disallowing the Company and Community workers from work. I the compound chief of Izifa, hearing this I did not want anything that will course Crisis or avoid confrontation with those persons who is blocking the Company. That is why I came to the police for the Police to called them and know what there problem is or all about, and for government to called them to order.”
As a result, the Claimants were invited to the Police Station and detained for some hours. Hence this action was instituted by the Claimants.
To further throw more light on the purpose of the meeting of the Claimants with the staff of Schlumberger BOMA-ALEX who gave evidence as CW5 explained under cross-examination thus:
“It is not correct to say we went there to stop Schlumberger from their works there until they negotiated with us. We only went there to negotiate with them. We did not go there on the invitation of Schlumberger. We only went there when they entered our own bush without our permission to stop them to enable them negotiate with us when they entered our bush. We did not write to Schlumberger before we went to them at Etelebou Oil Field.”
The law is trite on what false imprisonment is. An action can be against a private individual who maliciously gave false information to the Police and caused another person to be arrested or wrongfully detained. It is a tort. In OKAFOR VS. ABUMOFUANI (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1525) p.117, MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC has this to say:
“It is a correct representation of the law that if a report as in this case is made to the Police which has been found to be totally false, malicious and without foundation it is the maker of the report that is liable in damages to the Plaintiff for false imprisonment. This is because it is the maker of the report which complaint ignited the action of detention carried out by the Police that does not bring in the Police as a party to the action in the false report and imprisonment.”
However, action will not lie against an individual who merely gave information to the Police which led the Police in the exercise of their discretion to arrest a suspect. See ISHENO VS. JULIUS BERGER (NIG) PLC (2008) 6 NWLR (pt. 1084) p. 582.
I have deeply considered the facts of this instant case in the light of the position of the law. In my respectful view the report/petition of the Defendant fell short of being referred to as an instigation of the Police to arrest the Claimants. It is true the Claimants went to Etelebou Oil Field. It is true according to the evidence of CW5, they went there to stop Schlumberger from working until they negotiated with them. It is true they did not go there on invitation. If the above is true, one wonders what was wrong in the report of the Defendant to the Police, drawing the attention of the Police to the incident. I am unable to see any element of malice in the report. The report was substantially if not completely true. It seems clear that the arrest and detention of the Claimants was an exercise of discretion by the Police which could not be attributed to the Defendant. It was the initiative of the Police.
I therefore have no hesitation in my mind in holding that the finding of the learned trial Judge is unimpeachable. The case presented by the Claimants at the lower Court did not fall under the category of actionable cases under the tort of false imprisonment. The report to the Police was substantially true. The report in fact left it to the Police to exercise its discretion in the matter.
I resolve this sole issue in the circumstance in favour of the Respondent.
This is an action which should not have been in Court if not for the filthy lucre that has created distrust, rancor and acrimony among the members of Izifa family members. Izifa family members should practice love, harmony and reconciliation between themselves in their own interest and in the interest of generation to come. The importance of love and peace within their family cannot be over emphasized.
This Appeal completely lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Parties are to bear their respective costs.
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.: My learned brother, Awotoye, JCA, has served upon me the judgment in draft just delivered. Having read before now the judgment in question, the briefs of argument of the respective learned counsel vis-a-vis the record of appeal, I can not but concur with the reasoning reached therein, to the conclusive effect that the instant appeal completely lacks merits.
Hence, having adopted the said reasoning and conclusion as mine, I too hereby dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order in regard to costs.
ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the Judgment delivered by my learned brother T. O. Awotoye, JCA, I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein. I too dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit and abide by all other consequential orders as contained in the lead Judgment including order as to cost.
Appearances:
John Herbert Igbikiberesima, Esq. For Appellant(s)
I. Evans, Esq. with M. O. Ejiofor For Respondent(s)
