Newswatch Communications Limited V. Alhaji Aliyu Ibrahim Atta (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUSDAPHER, J.C.A. 

Allhaji Aliyu Ibrahim Atta was the plaintiff before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, wherein in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/209/84, he instituted the action by Writ of Summons dated the 18th day of May, 1994 against Newswatch Communications Ltd., the printer and publisher of a popular magazine known as the Newswatch as the defendant. The plaintiff’s claims were as follows:

1. The sum of N25,000,000.00 (Twenty Five Million Naira) being damages for its libel published by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff in the Newswatch magazine Volume 19 Number II of 14th March, 1994 at page 7 under the story titled fruits of his “Labour”, particularly the following words:

“There is this little story about him making rounds in Kam Salem House which we thought Ajudua would like to hear. He is said to be a very close friend of the former I.G. Aliyu Atta. One day the story goes, Ana was holding a meeting with top Police Officers when he was informed that a very important visitor had stormed the police Headquarters. The I.G. not one to keep an important visitor waiting promptly (yes) called off the meeting. As the top police Officers filed out of the I.G.’s office, they were shocked to find out Oga’s very important visitor was, wait for it, Ajudua. Ajudua grumble, grumble. We hear that some top Police Officers are still smarting over that incident.”

“A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, privies, servants, or otherwise from further publishing the libel complained of or any similar libel or other libelous matters whatsoever of and concerning the plaintiff and of him in the way of his public office as Inspector-General of Police or him in any other position whatsoever.”

Before the action was filed, when the plaintiff read the story he demanded a letter of apology from the defendants (Exhibit P2).

Instead of the apology the appellants wrote an abridged version of the letter in the Newswatch edition of 28th April, 1994 (Exhibit P3). The plaintiff in the meanwhile wrote another letter to the defendants on the 14th of April demanding an apology and compensation which was ignored by the defendants (Exh. P3). The writ as reproduced above was issued and served on the defendants within jurisdiction at Block 4, flat 2, Garki Abuja.

On the 26th day of July, 1994, when the case came up for mention, both parties appeared in court, counsel asked for an adjournment to “enable us regularise our paper”. It should be mentioned, that the writ of summons was accompanied with the statement of claim.

On the next date the 28/9/1994, the defendant’s counsel again asked for an adjournment to “enable us regularise our position.” The matter was adjourned to 17th and 18th January, 1995 for hearing. On the 18th of January, the defendants were absent and unrepresented. But the defendants wrote a letter to the plaintiff’s solicitor on the ground that “one of their lawyers Mr. Dele Awokoya was appearing at the Court of Appeal. Since the defendants did not even file a statement of defence, it appeared to the trial court that the defendants were playing delaying tactics and were frustrating the commencement of the trial. On the plaintiff’s application, the plaintiff was granted leave to lead evidence in proof of the claims.

PW1 and PW2 gave evidence and the matter was adjourned to 21st February, 1995 for continuation of hearing, with an order for hearing notice to issue on the defendants. On the 21/2/1995 when the matter came up, the defendants were absent and not represented even though the defendants solicitors were informed of the date. PW3 gave evidence. The matter was again adjourned to the 9/3/1995 for continuation of hearing.

On the 9/3/1995, the defendant’s counsel moved two applications one, for extension of time to file a statement of defence and counter-claim and two, to recall the plaintiff’s witnesses for cross-examination. The application to extend time to file the statement of defence and counter claim was granted, while the application to recall the plaintiff’s witnesses for cross-examination was adjourned. In the meanwhile PW4 gave his evidence in chief. And the matter was adjourned to the 11/4/1995.

On the 11/4/1995 when the matter came up for hearing, the defendant’s counsel moved the application to recall the plaintiff’s witnesses for cross-examination. The Ruling for the application was adjourned to 2414/1995, when the learned trial judge allowed the application on the condition that the sum of N45,000.00 being the expenses of the witnesses paid within 14 days.

On the 23/511995, the defendant’s counsel filed another application praying the court to set aside the issuance of the writ of summons and all other processes on the grounds that service should have been effected at the Lagos Head office of the defendants and not the Abuja office. The learned trial judge in his Ruling delivered on the 24/7/1995 refused the application to set aside the writ, he held that the defendants had an office within jurisdiction and that service of the writ within the jurisdiction was good service. It should be mentioned that the defendant was absent and unrepresented on the 13/6/1995, 27/6/1995 and on the 24/7/1995 when the Ruling was read. It should also be mentioned that the defendant did not comply with the order of court to tender the sums of money for the witnesses expenses. The matter suffered many adjournments because of the absence of counsel for defendants. On the 28/11/1995 on the plaintiff’s application, the order of recall of witnesses was discharged. The defendants were not in court nor were they represented even though fresh hearing notices were issued. The plaintiff closed its case and the matter was adjourned to the 23/1/1996, with an order for hearing notice to reissue on the defendant’s counsel. When the matter came up on the 23/1/1996, the defendants were not in court nor were they represented even after they acknowledged the hearing date. The matter was again adjourned to 24/1/1996 for defence. The defendants also failed to appear in court to defend the action. The learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the defendant had no defence to offer after recounting their continued numerous absences in court. He again adjourned the matter for addresses to 14/1/1996. On the 14/2/1996, the defendants were still absent in court. The learned trial judge allowed the plaintiff’s counsel to address the court. After the plaintiff’s address, the matter was again adjourned to the 27th day of February, 1996 for the defence to address the court. The defendant was again absent and unrepresented on the 27th of February, 1996 and the learned trial judge adjourned the matter for judgment on the 20/3/1996.

On the 9th day of May, 1996, the learned trial judge delivered his judgment wherein he found the words complained of to be libelous and awarded damage in the sum of Two Million Naira against the defendants.

In the meanwhile and when the matter was adjourned for judgment, the defendant filed an application dated 25/3/1996 for an order “arresting the judgment to be delivered herein” for an “order granting leave to the defendant/applicant to adduce oral and documentary evidence and open its defence in the suit herein before judgment is entered in this suit.”