Daily Times of Nigeria Plc. & Ors V. Major General Mohammed Magoro (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GALADIMA, J. C. A. 

This is an appeal against the ruling of SAHID J. of the Lagos State High Court, Lagos Division given on 24/3/95, in suit No. LD/2799/91.

The plaintiff now Respondent had sued the defendants now the appellants for libel claiming N100 Million. The said alleged libel said to be contained in the Daily Times issue of 23/10/91 never referred to the respondent by name, or description. Consequently, the appellants applied to the respondent by letter dated 10/2/93 for further and better particulars of the statement of claim. The Respondents apart from naming Major General Buhari (Rtd) and Major General Tunde Idiagbon (Rtd) as the publishers, whose addresses were not disclosed, contained no special facts and circumstances extrinsic to the publication.

The appellants then applied to the trial court to have paragraphs 7(i) and (ii) and 8(i) and (ii) of the statement of claim struck out on the grounds that the same disclosed no reasonable cause of action, is vexatious and/or tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. The learned trial Judge dismissed the appellants’ application.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellants filed three grounds of appeal from which they formulated the following single issue:

“Whether having regard to the facts that the respondent was not named in the publication; the legal innuendoes pleaded by the respondent and the consequential finding of the learned trial Judge that it was mandatory for the respondent to furnish particulars of facts and matters as required by the appellant in Exhibit ‘B’, the respondent’s reply in Exhibit ‘c’ was sufficient in law and so paragraphs 7 (i) and (ii) and (1) and (ii) of the statement of claim should be struck out along with the then entirely barren statement of claim.

The respondent formulated the following two issues for determination:

“(1) The main issue for determination is whether on the face of the writ of summons and the statement of claim plus the particulars supplied in the plaintiff/respondent’s counsel letter dated 16/4/93, the respondent/appellant do not have enough materials for them to file a defence to the action. Even if a popular or legal innuendo is involved?”

2. Whether as the plaintiff was not named in the Article, the defendants by alleging fraud in the Board of the National Maritime Authority of which the plaintiff was the Chairman reasonable people who have had to read Newspapers or had had to transact business with the National Maritime Authority would not know it referred to the plaintiff particularly when the defendants made allegations that corruption, inefficiency and mis-management were levelled against the Authority’s echelon of late? And further whether by further stating,

“For some time now, the N. M. A. has been rocked by a financial scandal for which not less than three top officials of the Authority are being quizzed at Alagbon over an alleged mismanagement and embezzlement of money in the Authority’s account with Midland Bank of London. Echelon had not been Translated to mean top officials of the National Maritime Authority and whether the Chairman of the Board is not a top official?”.

Counsel will do well to remember that brevity and economy of words are essential in brief-writing. Issues must be properly and carefully worded. This last issue of the respondent is unnecessarily lengthy. It is regarded as an extension of the first issue. However, the first issue of the respondent and the single issue formulated by the appellants are similar and quite germane for the determination of this appeal. The appellants’ only issue therefore will guide me in the determination of this appeal.

The paragraphs of the statement of claim which the appellants are attacking are paragraphs 7(i) and (ii) and paragraphs 8(i) and (ii). They are reproduced as follows:

“7 (i) On page 1 of the Daily Times issue of Wednesday 23/10/91 under the title “Maritime Authority Board Dissolved” the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published of and concerning the Board of National Maritime Authority of which the plaintiff was until 8/10/91 the Chairman and the said plaintiff’s position with the board is known to wide range of Nigerians, who have had to read papers or had had transact business with National Maritime Authority, and therefore the defendants have falsely and maliciously printed and published of the plaintiff by virtue of his position as Chairman of the said National Maritime Authority the words following.

7(ii) Although the dissolution order simply attributed the action to the re-organisation going on in the Authority, Daily Times found that the dissolution might not be unconnected with allegations of corruption, inefficiency and mismanagement levelled against the Authority’s echelon of late.

Apart from the rampaging corruption, they claimed that the inefficiency of the Authority has nearly killed the indigenous shipping industry through various absurdities, while at the same time enriching foreign shipping lines.