Chief Onumah Nkpa V. Champion Newspapers Limited & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Lagos State delivered by BOLA OKIKIOLU-IGHILE J. on the 28th day of March 2012 wherein the preliminary objection raised by the Defendants in the suit was upheld.

The Appellant had as Claimant in the lower Court filed his writ of summons dated 4-6-2010 together with the statement of claim, list of witnesses, witness statements on oath and list of documents to be relied on against the Defendants (now Respondents)

(See pages 1 to 25 of the Records)

The Respondents reacted by filing a memorandum of appearance followed with their joint statement of defence, list of witnesses and witness statement on oath, dated 14-7-2010 wherein they denied the claims of the Appellant and set-up a defence of qualified privilege.

(see page 26 to 32 of the Record).

The Appellant then responded by filing a reply to the statement of defence dated 16-8-2010 and supported same with a written statement on oath deposed to by the Appellant together with a list of documents and further documents in support.

(See pages 39 to 52 of the Record)

Upon being served with the said reply, the Respondents then filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 16-8-2010 wherein they sought the order of the lower Court to strike out the Appellants reply dated 16-8-2010.

The grounds for the preliminary objection are that:-

(1) Upon a proper construction of the provision of Order 18 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, the said reply is incompetent.

(2) The Claimant in paragraph 5 of the said reply has introduced new sets of facts not originally pleaded in his statement of claim.

(3) Upon proper construction of Order 24 Rule 3 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 the said reply containing written statement on oath, further list of documents is grossly misconceived and amounts to an amendment of pleadings.

The parties filed, served and subsequently adopted their written addresses and in a Ruling delivered on 28-3-2012, the lower Court refuse grounds 1 and 2 of the objection but upheld ground 3 by holding as follows:-