"As for the argument about appellant not being a defendant in the earlier criminal case at the Magistrate Court and cannot properly be a party in the subsequent civil action instituted by 1st and 2nd respondents at the High Court of Kwara State, it has to be realized that those are two different actions instituted by two different persons. The State, and not 1st and 2nd respondents, instituted the criminal case and control it so it has a choice as to who to arraign on the evidence in its possession, taking into account who in its view committed acts that amounted to not just civil offences but crimes. In contradiction, success in the civil action, for torts or breach of contract, is not only instituted by and at the absolute discretion of 1st and 2nd respondents, it also requires different ingredients just as proof this time is also simply on balance of probability. "the criminal matter is the concern of the state, so to say, while the civil matter is the concern of aggrieved individual." So it was said by this Court (Tobi, JCA, as he then was) in Veritas Insurance Co. Ltd v Citi Trust Inv. Ltd (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 349 @ 364-365. The difference in the right and authority to institute and control criminal and civil actions must not be confused."

Per UGO, J.C.A. in UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC v. HON. JUSTICE J. F. GBADEYAN (RTD) & ORS. (2018) LPELR-44859(CA)