Dr. Innih Ebong V. Friday Udoh & Anor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant in this appeal [as plaintiff[, by a writ of summons, endorsed with an eleven-paragraph Statement of Claim, filed at the High Court of Justice of Akwa Ibom State, Uyo Judicial Division (hereinafter, simply, called “the lower court”), claimed against the respondents herein, jointly and severally, the sum of N5 Million Naira being general damages for libel.

Pleadings were settled, filed and exchanged; amended, filed and exchanged. Pursuant to the applicable rules of the lower court, the parties filed their written statements on oath. The appellant testified as PW1 in proof of his case. He tendered fifteen exhibits, exhibits “A” – “M.” One other witness, Daniel Edet Edem, a farmer, testified in further proof of the appellant’s case.

The first respondent testified as DW1 in rebuttal of the plaintiff’s claim. In its judgment of June 29, 2012, the lower court [Coram Umanah J] dismissed the said claim. This appeal is the expression of the appellant’s grievance against the outcome of his case at the lower court. He formulated three issues for the determination of his appeal. They were framed thus:

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence before the lower court judgment ought not to be given to the appellant instead of the respondents?
2. Whether the description of the appellant as ‘ardent sycophant’ in the offending publication by the respondents amounts to ridiculing and denigrating the appellant?
3. Whether the trial court was not wrong in law when it held ‘I do not believe or give credence to written statement on oath one bit’ of PW2′ and thus came to the conclusion that the opinion of PW2 regarding the reputation of the appellant did not change after PW2 read the offending publication?

On their part, the respondents put forward the following three issues for determination:

1. Whether the appellant has satisfied the conditions and/or prove (sic) the ingredients necessary to sustain a claim for libel?
2. Whether the respondents were entitled, in the circumstances of this case, to benefit from any of the available defences open to them?
3. Whether the judgment of the lower court was so perverse as to occasion a miscarriage of justice?

Although the general rule is that this court must consider all issues presented before it, the apex court has endorsed a permissible exception to this rule. It, simply, comes to this: where the court is satisfied that the consideration of one or more issues may determine an appeal; that would obviate the need for tackling all the issues.

The authorities on this question are many: Tumbi v Opawole [2000] 1 SC 1; Onochie and Ors v Odogwu and Ors [2006] 17 WRN 1; [2006] 2 SCNJ 96; Owodunni v Regtd Trustees, CCC [2000] FWLR (Pt 9) 1455; Bamaiyi v State [2001] FWLR (Pt 46) 956; Umanah v Attah [2006] All FWLR (Pt 201) 1951; 7up Bottling Co Ltd v Abiola and Sons [2001] 7 NWLR (Pt 70) 1611; Sanusi v Ameyegun [1992] 4 NWLR (Pt 237) 527 .

In the instant appeal: an appeal that impugns the lower court’s dismissal of the appellant’s claims for damages for libel, we take the humble view that issue one is, sufficiently, commodious to embrace the appellants’ remaining two issues. In consequence, we shall adopt his issue one in the determination of this appeal. In doing so, however, we shall take the liberty to reframe it thus:

Whether, having regard to the pleadings and evidence on record, the appellant [as plaintiff] was entitled to judgment in his claim for damages for libel?

We shall, in the resolution of this sole issue, endeavour to pitchfork the appellant’s second and third issues into it and resolve all of them under the self-same issue.

ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUES

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT

ISSUE ONE