Deacon Joshua Oyedemi Adeyemo & Anor V. Prince/prophet Ezekiel Adejumo Akintola (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

VICTORA AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the judgment of Jimoh, J. delivered in the Ogbomoso High Court on 8th December, 1996. It is in a claim by the respondent against the appellants for the sum of five million Naira damages jointly and or severally:

“for defaming the plaintiffs character at Ile Babafila Ajawa, in the afternoon of 26/12/95; when the plaintiff went to look for his father and the 1st defendant accused the plaintiff of not saying (to him) “Kabiyesi.” On the entry of the plaintiff to the house of the 1st defendant. The first defendant ordered the 2nd defendant to lock up the entrance door of the defendants’ house and both of them started to shout thief, thief, thief, thief on the plaintiff. While shouting thief, thief on the plaintiff, which shouting attracted all the members of the defendant’s household and several persons in the environs trooped out and stood around, apparently to assist in catching the thief.

(11) N200,000.00 damages against the defendants jointly and severally for unlawful imprisonment of the plaintiff in the defendants house at Ajawa in the afternoon of 26/12/95; in breach of the plaintiffs fundamental rights.”

At the trial, the plaintiff testified and called five witnesses; the defendants also testified with one witness including the father of the plaintiff, the 1st and 2nd defendants testified in their defence. After reviewing the evidence; the learned trial Judge ruled thus “After a very careful consideration of the pleadings, and the oral evidence before me, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved his case on the balance of probabilities. His case succeeds. I award N50,000 damages against the defendants jointly and or severally for defaming the plaintiffs character at Ile Babafila Ajawa in the afternoon of 26/12/95, when the defendants shouted ole, ole, ole.” In the course of the proceedings before judgment was delivered the court made an order to amend the writ of summons and the statement of claim to include the words allegedly used by the defendant/respondent at the time of the alleged slander; therefore where the words “thief” appeared, the word “ole” should be inserted before the word thief, as the English interpretation of the word “ole.” Here are the facts of the case as contained in the printed record.

The plaintiff deposed that he had traveled in a friend’s car from Ogbomoso to Ajawa to attend a ceremony of community fund raising on 26/12/95. While the ceremony was proceeding; the plaintiff said he sought permission to leave the venue in order to visit his father; the 1st defence witness. On arrival at his father’s house the plaintiff said he was told that his father was in the 1st defendants’ house, he went into 1st defendants’ house. The plaintiff said he met the 1st defendant who reproached him for failing to say to the 1st defendant “Kabiyesi.”

The 1st defendant instructed the 2nd defendant to lock the “entrance door; while both the 1st and 2nd defendants shouted “ole, ole,” and ole; interpreted to mean thief, thief, and thief. It is necessary to state that the writ of summons shows the word thief, but it is settled law that an amendment when ordered dates back to the date of filing; See J. Afolabi & Ors. v. John Adekunle & Ors. (1983) 2 SCNLR 141, (1983) 8 SC 98; when the amendments were made in the interest of Justice per Obaseki, JSC. The plaintiff deposed that when he came out of the locked house, he saw about 800 people in the front of the 1st defendant house who had gone there to see the thief called by the defendants. He said the people were carrying sticks to beat the thief, until the crowd saw and recognized him as a prince and prophet, and as a prince of Ajawa, the plaintiff said for a prince of Ajawa to be called a thief will disentitle him to the chieftaincy status. The witnesses for the plaintiff also testified to that effect.

The plaintiff deposed also that his usually busy stream of visitors from his church reduced drastically when the church people heard that he was called a thief at Ajawa, PW1, PW2, PW3 also wondered whether prince Adejumo had gone to Ogbomoso to learn how to steal. PW4 like the other witnesses except PW2 who received report of the incident from the plaintiff, though he was said to be sitting in a car outside the house said they heard the plaintiff being called a thief repeatedly. PW5 said he heard the noise of the parties, the plaintiff and the defendant on 26/12/95 and recognized the voices of the people in altercation.

He saw a large number of people in front of the house of the 1st defendant and went to him to ask what happened. He deposed that the 1st defendant told him that the plaintiff was disrespectful to him and he put the plaintiff to shame. For the defence, the 1st and 2nd defendants’ separately testified. The 1st defendant said he heard exchange of words between the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff, when the 2nd defendant asked the plaintiff if he wanted to fight her, and what concern of his is it, that she was living with the 1st defendant. 1st defendant said he came out of his house to ask the plaintiff what he wanted in his house, and asked the plaintiff to leave his house. Before the plaintiff left; he threatened the 1st defendant that he would be hearing from his lawyer.

The 2nd defendant testified that the plaintiff accosted her to ask where she was going and she asked what concern her where about was to the plaintiff. The plaintiff she said dragged from her the chair she was carrying; and the plaintiff called her a harlot for serving and living with the 1st defendant. She said she replied by calling the plaintiff a thief. She deposed that it is she, as an abuse; who called the plaintiff a thief, in response to his calling her a harlot. The counsel for both parties addressed the court before the trial court pronounced judgment as written above, against the defendants who being dissatisfied with the judgment against them jointly and severally appealed to this court on the amended eight grounds of appeal, from which the appellant formulated the following four issues for determination.

They are:

(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in accepting and believing the evidence given by the persons whose names were not pleaded in the statement of claim as persons to whom the alleged slander was published?.

(2) Whether the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence led by both parties before rejecting the evidence of the defendants and their witnesses. Grounds 2,3,4 & 8?.

(3) Whether the words complained of could amount to a slander or mere vulgar abuse in the heat of anger under the circumstances in which the words were spoken?.