The facts of this case are simple. On the night of the 21st of November, 1988 at about 2.00 a.m. one of the vehicles owned by the respondent was engulfed by fire that eventually destroyed it. The respondent then made a report to the police about the incident. At the Station, When asked if he knew who could have done the act. he confessed that he knew of no one. When he was further asked if there was anyone he could describe as his enemy, the respondent mentioned the appellant as his old political enemy. Following that disclosure, the police promptly arrested the appellant and was detained at the Police cell for about three days. Though he was later granted bail. He was arrai'2iied before the Upper Area Court No. I Yola. But eventually discharged by that Court for the offences for which he was cleared. It was after he was so discharged, that the appellant commenced this action against the defendant.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court granted the appellant's claim. The respondent was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the appellant's claim.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.