Chief S.B. Bakare & Anor Vs Alhaji Ado Ibrahim (1973)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

DAN IBEKWE, AG. JSC 

The plaintiff’s claim before the Lagos High Court in Suit LD/618/68 was for “damages for libel” contained in a newspaper known as the “West African Pilot” of August 29, 1968 printed and published by the 2nd defendants, at the instance of the 1st defendant.

By his statement of claim the plaintiff (herein respondent) alleged that the defendants defamed him in that they falsely and maliciously printed and published of and concerning him the plaintiff, the words following which are set out in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the statement of claim.

“ In the issue of 2nd defendant’s newspaper, the West African Pilot, of August 29, 1968, the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff on the front page the following words, that is to say:

WARNING IT HAS COME TO MY NOTICE THAT ONE ALHAJI ADO IBRAHIM OF 17, MARTINS STREET, LAGOS, AND OF 15 THORBURN AVENUE, YABA, LAGOS, TRADING UNDER THE NAME STYLE OF ADO IBRAHIM & COMPANY LIMITED (AICO GROUP OF COMPANIES) HAS BEEN SOLICITING WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INVITING THEM TO BUY SHARES IN “KIFI LIMITED” OF 18, RHODES CRESCENT APAPA, LAGOS. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE HEREBY WARNED, IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, THAT NEITHER MYSELF, AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NOR ANY ACCREDITED MEMBER OF THE SAID KIFI LIMITED DID AUTHORISE THE SAID ALHAJI ADO IBRAHIM TO SOLICIT FOR SHARES ON BEHALF OF “KIFI LIMITED.’ ANY PERSON, PERSONS OR COMPANIES WHO NEGOTIATE OR BUY SHARES FROM THE SAID ALHAJI ADO IBRAHIM DOES SO AT HIS, HER OR THEIR OWN RISK. CHIEF S. B. BAKARE  CHAIRMAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KIFI LIMITED.

By the said words, the Defendants meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiff has no connection whatsoever with Kifi Limited, that the Plaintiff had fraudulently solicited money from the public pretending that he was connected with the said Kifi Ltd.; whereas his business connection was only with Ado Ibrahim Ltd., and that the Plaintiff intended to keep moneys thus fraudulently collected to himself and that the Plaintiff was out to cheat the public. The Plaintiff relies, for the said meaning on the natural and ordinary meaning of the said words. By reason of the premises the Plaintiff has been much injured in his credit and reputation and in his character as a Company Director and has been brought into a public scandal, odium and contempt and the plaintiff claims £50,000 DAMAGES.” The defendants (herein appellants) by their defence admitted publication of the words set out in the statement of claim, but put forward a plea of “fair comment” in the form of a Rolled-up plea; they also supplied particulars of the facts upon which they rely in their defence of fair comment. The relevant portions of the Statement of defence are as follows:-  “

The defendants admit writing and publishing the publication complained of. The defendants aver that in so far as the words complained of in the Statement of Claim consist of statement of fact the said words are in their natural and ordinary meaning and without the alleged meanings averred in paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim true in substance and in fact; and in so far as the said words consist of expressions of opinion they are fair comment made in good faith and without malice upon the said facts which are a matter of public interest particularly,

(i) The Plaintiff, in fact, solicited contributions from members of the public to buy shares in Kifi Limited.

(ii) The Plaintiff, in fact, had no authority from the Board of Directors of Kifi Limited to solicit for such contributions.

(iii) The plaintiff, in fact, told those to whom he appealed for contributions that the first defendant was the Chairman and a share-holder in the said Kifi Limited.

(iv) The plaintiff at no time told the first defendant of plaintiff’s activities in collecting Funds from the public and making use of first defendant’s name for the purpose.

(v) The plaintiff gave no account whatever of his activities to the first defendant or to the Board of Directors of Kifi Limited.”

The plaintiff did not deliver a reply alleging ‘express malice’.We shall later on in this judgment revert to this omission on the part of the plaintiff to serve a Reply. The facts are straightforward. The plaintiff is a director of a limited liability company known as Kifi Ltd., and the 1st defendant is the Chairman of the said company; the second defendants are the printers and publishers of a newspaper known as the “West African Pilot.” As could be seen therefore, pleadings were ordered and filed, and at the trial, the following exhibits were admitted by consent:-

(a) Memorandum and Articles of Kifi Ltd. as Exhibit “B”.