"With respect, I find it difficult to agree with the learned trial Court, that the mere fact that there was a pending case in Court between the Applicant (1st Respondent) and the Appellants (and other persons) in A/24/2006 and/or A/309/2002, the case had operated as a bar against the 1st Appellant to report the alleged new or fresh act(s) of criminal wrongs, which bordered on serious criminal allegations (threat of kidnapping, or to life of 1st Appellant by the Applicant (1st Respondent) to the Police for investigation. I think the 1st Appellant had an in alienable right to report the threats to his life to the police.
The usual practice is always to advise a litigant in a civil Suit, who complains of fresh attack by the opponent, bordering on crime, while the suit is pending, to report such attack or threat to peace, to the Police, for investigation (and possible prosecution in a criminal Court). Appellants should not therefore be vilified or penalized for exercising that option, if 1st Appellant merely lodged the complaint of impending attack or threat to his life and property with the Police. I therefore cannot see how such complaint made by 1st Appellant against the 1st Respondent, bordering on threat to life, kidnapping and/or stealing to the Police for which the Police directed the 2nd Respondent to investigate, can be dismissed as spurious and malicious, simply because there was a pending Civil claims between the parties, relating to the property (No. 177 Ehi Road, Aba), which also brought about the complaint - alleged threats of life and kidnapping - reported to the Police. I do not think the issue of sub-judice should apply in such a situation, to impugn a legitimate complaint to the Police about threat to life or of kidnapping, considering the prevailing social challenges in the area. The 1st Appellant therefore had a right to lodge the complaint in my view, in the circumstances, and to call for the investigation. Exhibit C shows that the Police believed him, as it directed the said investigation. He cannot be held responsible for what the 2nd Respondent did, or how the Police handled the matter. See the recent case of Ogbonna Vs Egbulefu & Ors (2018) LPELR - 43810 (CA),where this Court held:
I agree with the submissions of the Appellant's Counsel, that by law every citizen has a right and also a duty to lodge complaint with the police about any crime or wrong doing committed against him or in his presence, or at all, which would require investigation by the police. And Section 4 of Police Act enjoins the Police to investigate such complaint and to prosecute the accused, if the complaint is found to have substance. There are many judicial authorities to the effect that, a complainant, for merely making a report to the Police, does no wrong, and cannot be visited with liabilities, resulting from what the Police did with his complaint.
The complainant can only be faulted and held accountable, if the report was made malafide, maliciously or falsely and/or that the complainant sponsored the harassment and/or malicious violation of the fundamental rights of the victim out of mischief, using the guise of the petition/complaint to the Police. See the case of Fajemirokun vs Commercial Bank Nigeria Ltd & Anor. (2009) LPELR 1231 SC; (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) 588, where my Lord,Ogebe, JSC said: "Generally, it is the duty of citizens of this country to report cases of commission of crime to the Police for their investigation, and what happens after such report is entirely the responsibility of the Police.
The citizens cannot be held culpable for doing their civic duty, unless it is shown that it is done malafide." In the case of Onah vs Okenwa & Ors (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) 512 at 535, it was held: "Every person in Nigeria who feels an offence has been committed has a right to report to the Nigeria Police force. Once that right of complaint to the Police, who are custodians of order in the society, is exercised, the right shifts to the police to exercise their statutory powers under Section 4 of the Police Act." The above principles were followed by this Court in the recent decision, in the case of Mrs. Comfort Igbe & Anor. Vs. Mr. Henry Okeugo & Ors; CA/OW/383/2014,delivered on 8/12/17, where we said: "The right of the Appellants, as 1st and 2nd Respondents, to report the suspected criminal activities of the 1st Respondent (Applicant) to the Police, is constitutionally guaranteed, and protected by law. They could only be faulted, if the report was false and/or founded on malice. See the case of Fajemirokun vs Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd & Anor. (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt.1135) 588 SC, where the Supreme Court held: "Generally, it is the duty of citizens of this country to report cases of commission of crime to the Police for their investigation, and what happens after such report is entirely the responsibility of the Police.
The citizen cannot be held culpable for doing their civic duty, unless it is shown that it is done mala fide" Per Ogebe JSC. In the above case of Fajemirokun Vs CB Ltd supra the issue had to do with issuance of a dud cheques and it was held that: "In the first place issuance of Dud cheques is a criminal offence under Section 1 of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act Cap DII Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and for which the Respondents were entitled to make a report to the Police." Per Tabai JSC. In the case of Ozide & Ors. Vs. Ewuzie & Ors. (2015) LPELR - 24482 (CA), this Court said: "The law is trite that where a party lodges false and/or malicious complaint(s) with the Police against another, and causes the Police to use their coercive powers wrongly at the pleasure of the party who lodges the complaint(s), he must, together with the Police bear responsibility for the unlawful acts/omission of the Police done to the victim of the false/Malicious complaints/report. See Ogbonna vs. Ogbonna (2014)23 WRN 48; Clement Ohanedum & Anor Vs. C.O.P. & Ors. (supra); Udeagha vs. Nwaogwugwu (2013) LPELR - 21819 CA; Ejiofor vs Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt.665) 363; Agbakoba vs. S.S.S. (1994) NWLR (Pt. 351) 475; Salihu vs. Gana & Ors. (2014) LPELR - 23069 CA; Isheno vs. Julius Berger Nig. Plc. (2008)6 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 582.
The emphasis in the above case (Ozide vs. Ewuzie (Supra) was in lodging False and/or Malicious Complaint(s) against an Applicant seeking the application or taking action to enforce his fundamental rights. Thus, where the complaint is founded on bona fide complaint of commission of crime - assault, threat to life, fraud, obtaining by false pretences, malicious damage, stealing and such other criminal complaints, where-of the complainant was a victim or was genuinely apprehensive of threat to his safety or right or safety of his property, he is excused by law to complain and/or approach the Police or any law enforcement agency with complaint.
Even where the Police or the said agency mishandles the report, and violate the rights of a citizen, in the course of investigation of or action on the complaint, that is the business/responsibility of the Police or law enforcement agency. See the case of Oceanic Securities International Ltd vs. Balogun & Ors. (2012) 38 WRN 143; (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt.677) 633, where this Court held: "In the case of PSSS Ikachi vs. Igbulu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 940)543 at 574, it was held that any complaint made or information given to those interested in investigating a matter (the Police) will, in the interest of the society be privileged, once there is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.
In the case of Fajemirokun vs. Commercial Bank (C.L) Nig. Ltd (2009)5 NWLR (Pt.1135) 558 at 600 it was held: "Generally, it is the duty of citizens of the country to report case of commission of crime to the Police for their investigation and what happens after...is entirely the responsibility of the Police. The citizen cannot be held culpable for doing their duty unless it is shown that it is done mala fide." On the legal duty of the Police or investigating authority to take responsibility for their conduct and actions in the course of their investigation of complaints given to them by citizens, the authorities are replete on this. In the case of Duru vs. Nwagwu (2006)5 SCNJ 394 at 402, it was held: "It is settled law that where an individual has lodged the facts of his complaint to the Police, as in this case by way of Petition, and the Police have thereupon, on their own, proceeded to carry arrests and detention, then the act of imprisonment is that of the Police. See Sewell vs. National Telephone Co. (1907)1 KB 557..."
Per MBABA, J.C.A. IN NWANKWO & ANOR v. OKOLI & ANOR CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44079(CA)
