GUEST ARTICLE: Arrested Over Debts – Sues For Compensation
By Dickson Jere
A man borrowed money from four different people whom he described as “kaloba” or man lenders. He promised to pay them back with interest. He had shown them proof that government owed him money and that he will pay back the loans once he received payment from the State.
He even scribbled on a note “Ngatwapoka” meaning when we receive the payment, he will make good.
However, when payment came from government, he did not pay back the debts. This prompted the money lenders to report him to the police for “obtaining money by false pretenses”. He was arrested, charged and taken to the Magistrate Court.
After trial, he was acquitted as the a Court found that the debt was not criminal but civil case. He showed the Court the agreement and the lenders were advised to pursue the matter through civil proceedings.
Armed with the acquittal certificate, he sued government in the High Court , demanding to be paid compensation for malicious prosecution, wrongful detention and mental torture. He contended that the police ought to have known that the debt issue was not criminal even though they arrested him.
After hearing both sides, the Judge threw out his case, saying there was enough reasons for the police to have arrested him over the debt as he lied about his financial situation and ability to pay.
He then appealed to the Court of Appeal where a three member panel of Judges looked at his case and determined thus;
“At the time of his arrest, the time for repayment had long lapsed and the money due to him by the State had long been paid,” the Judges observed.
“In our view, there was probable cause on which the Appellant was prosecuted. That being the case, we find that the arrest and prosecution were not actuated by malice,” the Court said.
The Court explained that for malicious prosecution claim to succeed, one must adduce evidence to show that the arrest, detention and prosecution was done with malice.
“We agree with the lower Court that despite being acquitted by the Subordinate Court, there was a basis for the Appellants arrest and subsequent prosecution,” the Judges said.
“The Respondent (police) belief was based on complaints and not ulterior motives. The Appellant did not disclose any ulterior motives by the prosecution. He who alleges must prove,” the Court said and dismissed his case.
Case citation – Joseph Mulenga v Attorney General- Appeal No. 116/2023 and Judgement delivered on 25th June, 2025.
Lecture notes;
The Case highlighted four key ingredients to be proved in cases of malicious prosecution, which are;
1. There must be an arrest and prosecution,
2. That prosecution must lead to the acquittal of the accused,
3. The arrest and prosecution must be without reasonable or probable cause,
4. The arreet and prosecution must have been done maliciously.
In this case, Appellant only proved the first two. The rest were absent hence case was dismissed.