Action for false
imprisonment-Legal effects of
threats.
The following is the case stated
in which the facts are
sufficiently set out :-
•• This was a case in which the
plaintiff claimed from the
defendants' the sum of £150
being damages for the unlawful
acts committed by the defendants
on the plaintiff to wit the
defendants falsely imprisoning
the plaintiff at Minna " between
October 1934 and May 1935 .
•• 2. The facts and arguments
are set out at length in the
judgment. The Court found that
the case against the second
defendant. failed, but as
regards the first defendant the
Court held that it had been
established that he had detained
the plaintiff at Minna for a
period of some six months in
order that he might be called as
a witness in a prosecution for
illegal mining by threatening
that he would have him arrested
if he left, that the threat
continued for the period of the
detention and that, although the
plaintiff stated in his evidence
that he did not believe he would
be arrested, the action of the
first defendant constituted a
false imprisonment .
•• 3. For the reasons given in
the judgment it seemed to be a
case suitable for the exercise
of the power of the Court to
reserve a question of law for
consideration by the West
African Court of Appeal. The
decision was therefore given
subject to the opinion of the
Court of Appeal.
•• QUESTION
•• The question on which the
opinion of the Court of Appeal
is desired is whether the Court
came to a correct decision in
holding on the facts that a
threat to arrest another with a
show of authority to which that
other submits is an imprisonment
even though the plaintiff stated
in his evidence that he did not
think he would be arrested .
•• (Sgd.) N. J. BROOKE,
•• Judge."
Plaintiff not represented.
[vor Brace
for First Defendant.
The following joint judgment was
delivered :-
BUTLER
LLOYD, Ag.C.]., NIGERIA, BAKER
AND MARTINDALE, ]].
This is a case stated by Mr. ]
ustice Brooke for the opinion of
this Court. The question upon
which the opinion is sought is
" Whether the Court came to a
correct decision in holding on
the facts that a threat to
arrest another with a show of
authority to which that other
submits is an imprisonment even
though the plaintiff stated in
his evidence that he did not
think he would be arrested."
Now the leaned Judge when
stating the said case specified
that the Court held that" it had
been established that first
defendant had detained plaintiff
at Minna" for a period of some
six months.
