Guardian Newspapers Ltd & Anor V. Rev. Pastor C.i. Ajeh (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

I

n the Onitsha High Court of Anambra State, the respondent as plaintiff claimed against the appellants as defendants in paragraph 9 of his statement of claim:

(a) Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) damages for Libel

(b) Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and or privies from further publication of the libelous article Iyizoba, J (as she then was) presided. The plaintiff’s (a Pastor) case was that the 2nd defendant wrote an article in the Sunday edition of the 1st defendants Newspaper on the 3rd of December 1995. The article Titled “Lessons from a Pastor”, according to the plaintiff was false and malicious and portrayed him as a thief and dishonest person who stole items mentioned in the article, and that since the article was published his reputation has been damaged and he has lost his congregation. Three witnesses called by the plaintiff expressed similar views in their testimony on oath. The plaintiff claimed N10m damages for Libel.

The 2nd defendant who wrote the article testified that contents of the article are true. He pleaded that the article is fair comment on a matter of public policy. The plaintiff called three other witnesses while the defendants called three witnesses which included the 2nd defendant. Several documents were tendered as exhibits.

The learned trial judge heard evidence and considered the defence of fair comment and justification. Evaluated evidence and in a considered judgment delivered on the 23rd of February 2000 found that the article was libelous of the plaintiff, awarded N500,000.00 damages and restrained the defendants, its agents, privies from further publication of the libelous article. The defendants now appellants filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal Enugu Division, and in a unanimous decision delivered on the 22nd day of April, 2005 that Court dismissed the appeal in these words:

“All the issues are resolved in favour of the Respondent.

In sum this appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment particularly award of damages by the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal is assessed as N10,000 in favour of the respondent.

This appeal is against that judgment. In accordance with Order 6 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules briefs were duly filed and exchanged. The appellants brief was filed on the 9th of December 2005, while the respondents brief was filed on the 27th of February 2006.

In the appellants’ brief three issues were formulated for determination of this appeal. The issues are:

1. Whether having regard to the state of the pleadings, the evidence and the law, the Court of Appeal below was justified in holding that the learned trial judge properly construed the provision of Order 9 Rule 4 of the High Court Rules, Anambra state 1988 and the avowed principle in Okafor v. Ikeanyi 1973 3-4 SC p.99 that the full of the publication or any part of it complained of must be set out verbatim in the pleadings.
2. Whether the learned justices of the Court below were right in holding that the trial judge properly dealt with the perception of facts and evaluation of the evidence before him prior to arriving at his decision.
3. Whether the learned justices of the court below were right in endorsing the punitive damages, awarded against the appellants when there was no evidence before the court that the appellants profited from their wrong doing nor was there any proof that the appellants’ received any request to correct the publication and they failed to do so.

On the other side of the fence, the respondent formulated two issues for determination. They read:

1. Did the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal take into consideration facts other than material facts pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent in determining whether or not the words complained were defamatory and is the judgment against the weight of evidence.
2. Did the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal award punitive damages contrary to known legal principles.

I shall restrict myself to the issues formulated by the appellants as it obviously brings into focus the real grievance of the appellants. At the hearing of the appeal on 1st of February 2011, both counsel simply adopted their briefs, appellants learned counsel urging us to allow the appeal and respondents learned counsel urging us to dismiss the appeal. Counsel said nothing in amplification of their respective briefs.

Both courts below found as a fact that the contents of the article published in the Guardian Newspaper on the 3rd of December 1995 was libelous of the respondent. Libel is statement/s in written form which causes a person to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt, i.e. to be shunned or avoided and to be lowered in the estimation of right thinking people in the society. Put in another way to be disparaged in his profession or trade. The tort of defamation is either libel or slander, the difference being that the former is written while the latter is spoken.