Newbreed Organisation Ltd. V. J. E. Erhomosele (2006)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Lagos State, the plaintiff who is the respondent in this appeal claimed the following reliefs against the defendant/ appellant.

“(a) N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being, damages for libel contained in the ‘President Magazine’ Volume I, No. 27 (of November 20, 1989) published and widely circulated by the defendant within and outside Nigeria.

Alteratively

(b) N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) damages against the defendant for innocently, negligently or deliberately and falsely misrepresenting (sic) or crediting to the plaintiff statements which the plaintiff never uttered and by reason of which the plaintiff has suffered untold damages.”

The plaintiff’s claim is predicated upon the publication involving the plaintiff carried by the President magazine published and widely circulated by the defendant who are the publishers. This publication led to the termination of the appointment of the plaintiff by his employer, American International Insurance company (Nigeria) Limited. According to the plaintiff, the most damaging portion of the publication reads:

“However, in a chat with the President, Mr. J. E. Erhomosele, one of the brains behind the deportation “of Ritter and Chairman ASSBIFI, AIICO Chapter, the company is now under a new management that is poised to slot out the legacies of the Ritter days. There is a new dispensation here now. Ritter has been sent packing. Infact, he left the country unannounced. Government acted on our petition so there is no problem any more.”

The plaintiff immediately and thereafter demanded a retraction, but the defendant refused to do so, in spite of the fact that he did not grant the alleged ‘chat’. The plaintiff has suffered untold hardship as a result of his termination of employment and he has been exposed to ridicule, odium and contempt.

The defendant denied the allegations above, and stated that even if it authorised, issued or furnished the said publication, the words complained of are not defamatory, and cannot bear the meaning ascribed to them.

The plaintiff gave evidence and tendered many documentary evidence. The defendant however, did not adduce evidence, but his counsel addressed the court. The learned trial Judge evaluated the evidence before him, considered the addresses, found the case of the plaintiff proved, and found in his favour, awarding him the sum of N300,000.00 as damages.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on four grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, thus:

“In the final analysis, this appeal to the extent to which it challenges the right to enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent for damages suffered as a result of published malicious falsehood is hereby dismissed. But it succeeds in part, as to the sum of N300,000.00 awarded by the trial court as damages. That award is thus reduced to N150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira).”

Learned counsel exchanged briefs of argument. The appellant was not represented but learned counsel for the respondent was present and adopted his brief at the hearing of the appeal. In its brief of argument, the appellant raised the following issues for determination:

“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial court in favour of the respondent in his alternative claim when there was no evidence of malicious falsehood.