Eddy I. Onah V Schlumberger (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

Proceedings leading on to this appeal were first instituted in a Port Harcourt High Court, River State of Nigeria. Osu J presided and in that court the plaintiff/appellant claimed as per paragraph 21 of his amended statement of claim:

(a)The sum of seven million naira being general damages for libel contained in the letter dated 2nd day of March, 1992 written and published or caused to be written and published by the defendants’ and concerning the plaintiff captioned THREATS FROM THE MANAGER OF CHILKED SECURITY SERVICES.

(b)An injunction restraining the defendants’, their servants and/or agents from writing and publishing or causing to be written and published any similar libel of and concerning the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is the Managing Director of Chilkied Security Services and Dog Farms Ltd, while the 2nd respondent is the head of Administration of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent awarded a contract to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was to provide Security Services at the residential Camp, office, and Warehouse of the 1st appellant.

The plaintiff went to work, but after a while the contract was terminated. The 2nd respondent claimed that the termination of the contract did not go down well with the plaintiff. He claimed that he was threatened by the plaintiff in messages sent by the plaintiff to him (the 2nd respondent). The 2nd respondent wrote a letter exhibit C to the Commissioner of Police reporting the threats of the plaintiff and seeking Police protection. The plaintiff claimed that the contents of exhibit C. are defamatory of him. The defendants’ relied on the defence of justification and qualified privilege pleadings were filed and served. Trial was heard on the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim filed on 14 April, 1994 and the defendants’ second amended statement of defence filed on 10 July 1996. The plaintiff gave evidence and called two other witnesses. The defendants’ called two witnesses and a total of six documents were admitted as exhibits, A, B, C, D, E, and F.

In a considered judgment delivered on 28 November, 1997 the learned trial judge agreed with the plaintiff. His lordship found that the plea of qualified privilege cannot be sustained.

Awarded the sum of 2,500, 000.00 (Two million, five hundred thousand Naira) in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants’ jointly and severally, and made an order of injunction restraining the defendants’ their servants and/or agents from writing and publishing or causing to be written and published any similar libel of and concerning the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the defendants’ filed an appeal. It was heard by the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal. That court set aside the judgment of the trial court, and ordered that all monies paid in satisfaction of the judgment shall be refunded to the respondents (appellants’ in the Court of Appeal).

This appeal is against that judgment. Briefs were filed and exchanged. The appellant’s brief was filed on 24 March 2009 but deemed properly filed and served on 1 July 2009.

The respondents’ brief was filed on 4 July, 2011 but was deemed duly filed and served on7 June, 2017. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. O. Iheniyen formulated two issues for determination from two grounds of appeal:

1.Whether despite properly stating the effect of malice on the defence of qualified privilege the lower court properly considered same in this suit vis a vis the evidence before the court.

2.Whether after determining that a defence of justification would constitute an uphill task to establish and that the justification purportedly set up by the respondents’ was “feeble” and “half-heartedly pleaded”, the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the trial judge did not make a finding as to whether the respondents’ actually uttered the words or not. This issue is elicited from grounds 2 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondents’ Mr. S.A. Somiari also formulated two issues for determination: