Jonathan Ishaku & Anor V. Oluwole Aina (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Oyo State High Court, Ibadan as contained in the judgment delivered on the 10th of May, 1994. According to the brief facts of the case – the plaintiff before the lower court, Oluwole Aina – now respondent in the instant appeal claimed against the defendants – Jonathan Ishaku and Champion Newspapers Limited, who are the appellants, jointly and severally for the under-mentioned reliefs:-

1. N1, 000,000 (one million Naira) being general damages for libel committed by the defendants when at page 3 of the Sunday Champion of June 19th, 1990 the defendants printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff the words to the following effect:-

‘Oyo – Ola Ogundipe reported minor cases of malpractices in some areas which nearly marred the exercise. A contestant for the NRC in the Ibadan Municipal Local Government, Mr. Oluwole Aina, was whisked off from the election venue at the instance of the administrative secretary to prevent the breakdown of law and order.”

2. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or otherwise however from publishing or further publishing the words complained of or any other words to the like effect of and concerning the plaintiff”.

Parties filed and exchanged pleadings. The plaintiff/respondent gave evidence and called four witnesses. The publication was tendered as exhibit A. The trial of this case was that the publication was meant to refer to him as involving in malpractice and was whisked away from the venue of the election by the police. The publication standing on its own would to a reasonable and intelligent man bear a defamatory meaning. The defence was however based on justification by which the defendants/appellants asserted and affirmed the truth of the publication.

In a reserved judgment, the learned trial Judge pronounced that the plaintiff’s action succeeds and he assessed N1,000,000 (One million Naira) general damages in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants/appellants jointly and severally, and granted perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agent, and privies or otherwise howsoever from publishing or further publishing the words complained of or any other words to the like of concerning the plaintiff vide page 92 of the records.

Being dissatisfied with the said judgment the defendants have appealed to this court. They filed eleven grounds of appeal pursuant to the leave to amend granted by this court on the 11th of November, 1998. Parties settled records and exchanged briefs in compliance to the rules of this court. In arguing the appeal the appellants adopted and relied on the appeal deemed filed on 19/4/2000 in which they distilled five issues for determination as follows:-

(a) Whether the court properly evaluated the evidence placed before it when it held that the defence of justification did not avail the appellants?

(b) Whether from the circumstances surrounding this case DW3 was duty bound to have gone to the High Court Registry to cross-check particulars of the court’s order of 13/6/90?.

(c) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have applied the provisions of section 137(1) now section 138(1) of the Evidence Act to this case when commission of a crime was not a fact directly in issue?.

(d) Whether the N1,000,000 (one million Naira) only awarded as damages was not excessive considering the fact that the trial court took into consideration irrelevant factors in the assessment of the quantum of damages?.

(e) Whether on the totality of evidence presented in this case, the decision of the court below is manifestly insupportable?

The issues flow directly from the grounds of appeal filed. The respondent in the brief filed on 19/6/2001 considered two issues only as arising for determination in this appeal which are:-

(1) Whether the appellants successfully proved the defence of justification relied upon by them in their pleading in the court below;

(2) Whether there are circumstances which would justify this appellate court in disturbing the award of damages made by the lower court;