Court considered whether the prosecution was malicious or not. The ingredients of malicious prosecution were stated as; (a) That the defendant instituted and continued proceedings. (b)That the defendant acted without reasonable cause. (c)That the defendant acted maliciously. (d)That the proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff.
From the evidence adduced, court was satisfied that the defendant instituted and continued the proceedings which were terminated in favour of the plaintiffs. That malice may be inferred when a wrongful act is done intentionally without just cause or excuse. Court also noted that the defence did not bring any other witness to explain as to why the plaintiffs were prosecuted if the reports regarding the drugs were to the effect that they were fit for human consumption which contradicts the reason given by the defendant for the prosecution of the plaintiffs. Therefore did not find any ground as to why the plaintiffs were prosecuted.
Accordingly court upheld the plaintiffs’ suit and awarded them damages