Chief Sen. Luka Gwom & Anor V. Prince S. A. Orokoyo (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal was filed by the defendants against the judgment delivered by Hon Justice B. Nimpar, J., (as he then was) sitting in the Plateau State High Court of Justice No. 4, Jos on 29th February, 2012 in favour of the respondent who was the plaintiff in the Court below.

The respondent founded his cause of action on libel based on two publications dated 31st October, 2005 and 6th December, 2005 which he claimed was written by the appellants out of malice and hatred to destroy the respondent’s popularity among the Kabong Community he had served regarding a water project.

The respondent testified as PW1 and tendered Exhibits “1”-“4”. PW2 to PW5 testified thereafter and the respondent closed his case. The appellant testified as DW1 and tendered Exhibits “4”-“6”. Learned Counsel called DW2-DW5 who testified, were cross-examined and re-examined.

Learned Counsel submitted written addresses which were adopted. The learned trial Judge considered them and on 29th February, 2012 delivered judgment holding at page 172 lines 9-12 of the printed record as follows:

“Damages follow event and here established, the claim for damages also succeeds and general damages in the sum of N1,000,000.00 Naira (One Million Naira) only is hereby awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff’s claim succeeds.”

Five grounds accompany the Notice of Appeal filed on 16th March, 2012 by David N. Ansho, Esq. of Counsel representing the appellants. The following issues were distilled for determination in the appellants brief filed on 8th July, 2012 to wit:

“1. Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence before the Court, when it arrived at the decision subject of this appeal.

2. Whether the failure of the respondent to proof (sic) publication of the letters alleging defamation is not fatal to his case.
3. Whether having not proved by his witnesses what their mindset was when they read the letters, the Court was right in deciding the objective test of ordinary men in favour of the respondent.
4. Whether it was for the appellants not the respondent to prove the falsity of the letters to people the basis of the defamation, and particularly the issue of receipt issuance or not.
5. Whether without establishing malice or hatred against the respondent, aggravated damages of such magnitude was reasonable and justifiable.”

The respondent filed a brief of argument on 3rd December, 2012 with a deeming order made by this Court on 4th December, 2012 subject to payment of penalties. The following issues were distilled for determination to wit:

“(a) Whether the respondent (as plaintiff in the Court below) proved its claims against the appellants (as defendants in the Court below) with preponderance of evidence or on the balance of probabilities as required by law (Grounds 2, 3 and 4).

(b) Whether the Court below was able to evaluate the evidence of the parties in this suit, as it were, (now on appeal), and ascribed a probative value to the evidence and placing same on the proverbial imaginary scale before arriving at its verdict (Ground 1).

(c) Whether the Court of Appeal should interfere with the award of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) awarded by the trial Court to the respondent as general damages (Ground 5).”

The duty of an appellant is to formulate what he considers to be issues arising in the appeal, taking into consideration the amended or additional grounds of appeal. See Order 18 rule 3(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011. The respondent has not cross-appealed nor filed a Respondent’s Notice. Order 18 rule 4(2) of the Rules (supra) provides that the respondent shall answer in the brief “all material points of substance contained in the appellant’s brief and contain all points raised therein which the respondent wishes to concede as well as reason why the appeal ought to be dismissed…”

Accordingly I shall confine myself to the issues formulated by the learned Counsel to the appellants for determination in this appeal. See Atanda & Ors. vs. Akanji & Ors. (1989) 2 NSCC 511 at 537.