JEREMIAH KAMAMA v BUGOMOLA MAYANDI 1983 TLR 123

Facts

The defendant made an allegation at a public meeting that the plaintiff was responsible E for a spate of arson committed in the village. The defendant further ordered the arrest of the plaintiff as a result of which the plaintiff was handed to the police, and charged but was latter released for lack of evidence. It was established that the allegation was made on account of political rivalry and was false. In the District Court, judgment was given F for the plaintiff who was awarded shillings 5,000/= as damages. Dissatisfied with this decision, the defendant (appellant) appealed to the High Court. 

Held: (i) For a suit for malicious prosecution to succeed the plaintiff must prove simultaneously that: 

 (a) he was prosecuted.

 (b) that the proceedings complained of ended in his favour.

(c) that the defendant instituted the prosecution maliciously.

(d) that there was no reasonable and probable cause for such prosecution; and 

(e) that damage was occasioned to the plaintiff

(ii) for purposes of malicious prosecution, a person becomes a prosecutor when he takes steps with a view to setting in motion legal processes for the eventual I prosecution of the plaintiff.

(iii) malice exists where the prosecution is actuated by spite or ill-will or indirect or improper motives.