The case of the plaintiff as pleaded, shortly put, was that on the 24/8/87 at about 7 0' clock in the morning, a team of five armed anti-crime police men from the Police Station, Iho, led by the Divisional Crime Officer (D.C.O.) Mr. Oko, came to his house without a prior notice to him. The police came armed with a Search Warrant. The Search Warrant was issued by a Magistrate and dated "17/8/87"

The police was authorised by the Warrant to search him for arms, ammunition and Indian hemp. The police executed the search warrant on him and thoroughly searched his house and premises. At the conclusion of the search the police neither recovered any of the items listed in the search warrant nor anything incriminating. The police, none-the-less, took away from him his Typewriter and Yamaha 1500 generating plant, later returned to him. The police, in addition, arrested him, his wife and his son and took them to the Police Station, Iho.

It was in the police station, Iho, according to the plaintiff, that he found that the search, his arrest and the arrest of his wife and son were as a result of a false and malicious report made to the police by the defendant.

The police later released the plaintiff and the wife and his son. But on the 8th of October, 1988, two policemen from the Iho Police Station again came to his house and arrested him. Again, on the 14/10/88, the police came to his house to arrest him. But he was not in the house then. The police left a written message for him to report to the Police Station, Iho. On his return to his house, he read the message and reported at the Police Station, Iho, n the 15/10/89

It was part of the case of the plaintiff, as pleaded, that some members or elders of their village intervened and pleaded with the Divisional Police Officer (D.P.O) granted the request for a settlement for peace between him and the defendant.

It was part of the case of the plaintiff, as pleaded, that some members of elders of their village intervened and pleaded with the Divisional Police Officer (D.P.O) Iho, to allow them reconcile him (plaintiff) and the defendant, The D.P.O granted the request for a settlement for peace between him and the defendant.

As the plaintiff pleaded, the elders heard him and the defendant. Thereafter the elders found against the defendant, that the defendant's petition to the police against him was false and malicious. The elders decided that the defendant would bring a jar of palm wine, a bottle of hot drink and cock to him (plaintiff) and apologise to him (plaintiff).

The elders, thereafter, reported to the D.P.O their resolution.

The Divisional Police Officer at the conclusion of his investigations cleared the plaintiff and set him free because the complaint was false and malicious.

The defendant on his part has set up a case quite different from the plaintiff's. The defendant has absolutely denied making any report or complaint to the police against the plaintiff. He had no dispute involving the police with the plaintiff.

It was, however, the case of the defendant as pleaded, that the only dispute he had with the plaintiff was in respect of the estate of their deceased father. According to the defendant, the plaintiff refused or neglected to share with him the landed property of their deceased father. The plaintiff would rather keep the entire estate to himself and enjoy it exclusively. To compel the plaintiff to share the estate with him, the defendant had instituted an action against the plaintiff in the Customary Court, Eziama, in suit No. CC/EZ/IE/82/88.

It was part of the case of the defendant, as pleaded, that the elders "Aladinma" - and some well-meaning persons had tried to make peace between him and the plaintiff but the plaintiff had resisted such moves. According to the defendant the present suit by the plaintiff was a device to intimidate him into discontinuing the Customary Court action against him (plaintiff).

The defendant has denied any liability to the plaintiff in his claims.

The trial court found for the respondent and awarded the sum of N10, 000 as damages for malicious prosecution against the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of appeal.