Alhaji L.M.O. Gomes V. Punch (Nigeria) Limited & Anor (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, J.C.A. 

In the court below, the plaintiff sued the defendants jointly and severally claiming N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being general damages for libel contained in June 29, 1985 page 11 issue of the Punch newspapers, sub-headlined LDFA to render account” with the following:

“The council also indicted the former Chairman and Association Accountant, Alhaji Gomes as operating an autonomous body while in office without keeping proper books and records or its financial transactions and assets and without being accountable to anyone.”

He also claimed an injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally by themselves, their agents or servants or otherwise from publishing the said or similar libel or and concerning the plaintiff and an apology from the defendants to be caused to be published in their newspapers in respect of the libellous article, Amended statement of claim and amended statement of defence, with the leave of court, were eventually filed and exchanged between the parties.

Subsequently the case proceeded to trial. And after taking the addresses of counsel on both side, the learned trial Judge of the court below, A.L.A.L. Balogun J. dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on 28th December, 1992 by concluding as follows:

“I do not think that the words published by the defendants could bear any meaning beyond their true and natural meanings therein and do not bear the innuendo placed on them by the plaintiff. But on the fact of this case, even if they did, I am satisfied from the pieces of evidence led at the trial that the article published by the defendants was published on a qualified privilege occasion. Furthermore, I am also satisfied that what was published by the defendants was exactly what was released to them and which were contained in the Auditor’s report. I am also satisfied that the publication having been made on a privilege occasion, the defence of qualified privilege raised by the defendants must succeed and I uphold the same. See Oyejike v. Anyasor (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.218) 437.

In these circumstances, I find and hold that the plaintiff failed woefully to prove his claim which I therefore dismiss.”

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff appealed therefrom to this court on one original ground and four additional grounds of appeal. He (plaintiff/appellant) distilled five issues from the original and additional grounds of appeal and they are as follows:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge had power to make a case which the defendant did not put forward.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge can approbate and reprobate on the same and singular fact.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to accept the plaintiff as “the former Chairman and Association Accountant.”
4. Was the learned trial Judge right in the interpretation of Exhibit “P3” the Auditor’s report.
5. Has the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence and thereby came to a right decision?

The respondents on the other hand formulated two issues in their brief of argument for determination and they are:

1. Whether the appellant’ complaints as contained in its grounds of appeal are sufficiently challenged to the validity of the judgment to warrant setting aside the said judgment and entering judgment in favour of the appellant.
2. Whether the said grounds of appeal are in fact sustainable upon the records.

Whether appeal came before us on 28th January, 1999 for argument, Mr. Akinduro, learned counsel for the appellant, adopted the appellant’s brief and his reply brief and while citing the cases of Mayange v. Punch (Nig) Ltd. (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 358) 570; Onwu v. Nka (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.458) 1 and Ugo v. Okafor & Anor. (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.438) 542 in addition to the authorities contained in the lists attached to the brief of the appellant he urged that the appeal be allowed. The respondents were not represented by a counsel although they filed brief of argument.

Upon a careful consideration of the issue formulated by both sides as set out above, I am of the view that this appeal can be disposed of by issue 5 formulated by the appellant and issue 1 formulated by the respondents and they are:

Issue 5 by the appellant:

“Has the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and thereby came to a right decision?”

Issue 1 by the respondents: