Summary

The defendant complained to the police and at a village meeting that the plaintiffs had set his house on fire and had stolen some of his property. The plaintiffs were arrested and prosecuted but acquitted. They sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. On appeal the plaintiffs sought to establish that the fact of their acquittal was relevant to prove the existence of malice. Held: i) malicious prosecution is committed where there is unity of the four elements, namely (a) that the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; (b) that the prosecution terminated in plaintiff's favour; (c) that it was without reasonable and probable cause; and (d) that it was malicious. (ii) a final judgment in a previous criminal proceeding is relevant where it declares any person to be guilty of a criminal offence, but where there is an acquittal the judgment in a criminal proceeding is not, in a civil suit, evidence of innocence. Appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: (i) Hicks v. Faulkner [1878] 1 Q.B.D. 167 (2) Osman v. Hill [1954)2 T.L.R. (R) 180 (3) Hollington v. Hewthorne Co. Ltd. [1943]2 All E.R. 35 (4) Ramadhar v. Janki, A.I.R. 1956 Pat. 49 (5) Kondo v. Mwajabu Juma [1972] H.C.D. n. 236.

Keywords

Tort — Malicious prosecution — Allegation- that plaintiffs had committed a crime — Plaintiffs arrested, prosecuted but acquitted — Whether the tort established