Bassey Edem & Anor V Orpheo Nigeria Limited & Anor (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

E. OGUNDARE, J.S.C.

The Plaintiffs, Orpheo Nigeria Limited and Dr. Sama Ekpo Sama, (who are Respondents in this appeal), and the Defendants, Bassey Edem and Pamol Nigeria Limited, (now Appellants), had business relationship. The 2nd Defendant owned a cottage hospital on its plantation which it sold to the 1st Plaintiff. The hospital became known as Health Farm Clinic Dr. Sama and was being run on behalf of the 1st Plaintiff by the 2nd Plaintiff, the medical director of the hospital. By an agreement between the 2nd Defendant and 1st Plaintiff employees of the former were being treated, for agreed fees, at the hospital. On the expiration of the agreement the Defendants intimated the Plaintiffs of their intention not to renew it. The 2nd Defendant had by then converted a part of its premises into a clinic and equipped same, for the use of its staff. There was an opening ceremony of this clinic attended by many people, including members of the press. At this opening ceremony the 1st defendant, who at all times relevant to this action was the Managing Director of the 2nd defendant, made a statement which the Plaintiffs complained was libellous of them. The full of the statement was published in “Pamol News” the staff newspaper of the 2nd defendant. In consequence of this statement the plaintiffs sued the defendants claiming N2m general damages for the libel.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged and the case went to trial on Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim and Defendants’ Amended Statement of Defence. At the trial, evidence was led on both sides. After addresses by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge in a reserved judgment found for the plaintiffs and entered judgment in their favour in the sum of N400,000.00 as general damages.

Being dissatisfied with this judgment the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal which court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The defendants have now appealed to this court.

Pursuant to the rules of this court the parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. In the Appellants’ brief, 2 issues have been raised as calling for determination in this appeal. The 2 issues read:

“1. Whether the claim of the 1st Plaintiff was sustainable in the light of the evidence adduced at the trial.

2. Whether the joint claim of the Respondent which culpability (or damages) is dependent on the two proofs of different and totally distinct injury, could be sustained in the circumstances.”

The plaintiffs for their part, formulated 2 Issues which I consider to be variants of the issues formulated by the defendant. I think for the purpose of this appeal the issues as formulated by the defendants will suffice.

ISSUE 1:

Whether the claim of the 1st Plaintiff was sustainable in the light of the evidence adduced at the trial.

Learned counsel for the defendants referred to passages in the evidence of the 2nd Plaintiff who testified at the trial as P.W.1. After citing dicta from various authorities, learned counsel submitted, having regard to the pleadings filed and evidence of P.W.1, that there was no shred of evidence to justify the finding that the 1st Plaintiff was injured, “in the pocket” by the libel of the defendants. He urged the court to hold that the two courts below were wrong in finding in favour of the 1st Plaintiff as no evidence existed showing such pecuniary loss, or any other loss for that matter, on the part of the 1st Plaintiff. He urged the court to set aside the judgments of the two courts below in so far as the 1st Plaintiff was concerned.

Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, after referring to a passage in the judgment of the learned trial Judge, observed that the learned Judge was mindful of the artificial nature of the 1st Plaintiff. He argued that the finding of the trial Judge was to the effect that the 1st plaintiff was injured in its reputation in the operation of the Health Farm Clinic Dr. Sama which was no longer functioning as a result of the libellous publication by the defendants. Learned counsel argued that the injury to the 1st Plaintiff was to its business reputation. Counsel submitted that the 1st Plaintiff injured in its reputation and was, therefore, entitled to damages.

The finding in favour of the 2nd Plaintiff is not being contested in this appeal. It is the judgment in favour of the 1st plaintiff who is a corporate body that is being contested on the ground that there was no evidence that the 1st Plaintiff suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of the libel.

It is settled law that a limited liability company such as the 1st plaintiff cannot be injured in its feelings as it has no feelings; it can only be injured in its pocket. As Lord Reid put it in Lewis v. Daily Telegraph, Ltd. (1963) 2 All ER 151 at 156:

“A company cannot be injured in its feelings, it can only be injured in its pocket. Its reputation can be injured by a libel, but that injury must sound in money. The injury need not necessarily be confined to loss of income. Its goodwill may be injured.”(Underlinings are mine)