Chief Nya Edim Ekong V. Chief Asuquo E. Otop & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division delivered on 5th of December, 2005. In the said judgment, the lower court, in a unanimous decision allowed the respondent’s (as appellants) appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State, and dismissed the appellant’s cross appeal. I shall briefly state the facts which gave rise to this appeal.

The appellant as plaintiff sued the defendants (now respondents) over a petition written by the 1st to 5th defendants in which he claimed that they falsely and maliciously published defamatory material concerning him. The alleged offensive publication was contained in a letter titled “Protest by the Big Qua, the Idundu and the Ediba Clans relating to claims to Ediba Swamp and Marsh Lands” addressed to HRH Ndidem U. Iso, the Ndidem of the Quas. The said petition was admitted in evidence as exhibit D.

The petition was sparked off by a fracas on the 21st day of October, 1996 at the Ediba swamp and marshlands between the indigenes of Akim clan on the one hand and those of the protesting clans. In the said petition, the 1st to 5th defendants as chiefs of Big Qua, Idundu and Ediba narrated the events of 21st October, 1995 and called on the Ndidem “as our leader – to whom matters of this nature are appropriately referable for detached and just resolution.” The appellant was mentioned as the leader of the agents of Akim clan in said fracas which resulted in the matchet cuts inflicted on some of the indigenes of the petitioners.

Neither the Ndidem nor Akim clan (of which the Ndidem was Clan Head) addressed the issues raised in the petition. Rather their solicitors wrote exhibit E affirming the ownership of the swamplands by Akim clan and to which the 6th defendant replied as secretary to the Qua Clans Constituted Assembly in exhibit F.

Meanwhile, the Qua Clans Constituted Assembly proceeded to set up an arbitration panel to look into the complaint of the three clans against Akim and came up with its findings as contained in exhibit H. It was against this background that the appellant sued the respondents at the trial court claiming that he was libeled in exhibits D, F and H.

Initially the appellant sued nine defendants at the High Court of Cross River State for the following reliefs:-

“(1) N10 million against the 1st to 5th defendants as general damages for the libel contained in a petition dated 5th December, 1995.

(ii) N10 million against all the defendants for the libel contained in a letter dated 19th March, 1997.

(iii) N30 million against all the defendants for the libel contained in a document titled “judgment” and dated 5th June, 1997.

(iv) An order that the defendants write an apology and a retraction of the libel individually and file same in court and serve it on the plaintiff and on all the persons to whom the libelious documents were originally addressed.

(v) An order of injunction restraining the defendants from further publication of the libel and from demanding the penalty stated in their libelious “judgment” of 5th July, 1997.”

Some of the original nine defendants have since died and their names were consequently struck out. Thus the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th defendants at the High Court became 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents respectively.

However, at the hearing of this appeal on 25/3/14, the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents were reported dead. Their names are accordingly struck out. We now have the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents only to defend this appeal.