J. C. Egbuna V. The Amalgamated Press Of Nigeria Ltd. (1967)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BRETT, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgement of Alexander J ; in the High Court of Lagos dismissing the plaintiffs claim for damages for libel.

The plaintiff was at the material times General Manager of the Nigerian Railway. The first defendants were the proprietors, publishers and printers and the second defendant the acting Editor of the ‘Daily Express’ newspaper. The Statement of Claim set out the matters with which this appeal is concerned in the following terms-

‘3. On pages 1 and 6 of the issue of the said newspaper dated Monday, November 18, 1963, under the heading:-

Rail Board Rejects £1.8m. Deal

Chairman, General Manager Blamed for Fantastic Bid

the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published or caused to be printed and published of the plaintiff and of him in the way of his said office and in relation to his conduct therein words highly defamatory and/or imputing a criminal offence contrary to section 98 subsection (I) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 42 Vol. 11 of the 1958 Laws of Nigeria:-

The quotation of the firms were expected to be considered here in Nigeria by the Board. But last month, the Chairman and the General Manager flew to London and opened the tenders. According to the sources there were three quotations: £1.2 million £1.6 million and £1.8 million. The tender of the firm with the highest quotation was selected by them and brought down for ratification by the Board. ‘

‘4. By the words set out in paragraph 3 above the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff was guilty of breach of trust, and/or dishonest and/or corrupt and/or unworthy to hold office as the General Manager of the Railway Corporation.’

‘8. On page 6, column 8 the defendants similarly falsely and maliciously printed and published of the plaintiff and of him in the way of his said once:-

… He was said to have ruled that the tender already selected by the Chairman and the General Manager should be accepted without any further delay. But when the decision of the Minister was made known to the Board last week, it was rejected. The Board protested that the Minister ought not to force any decision on a matter like that down their throat, particularly when their own decision was out to economise the funds of the Corporation. “

‘9. By the words set out in paragraph 8 above the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff is an unpatriotic person who squanders public funds and therefore not fit to hold the said office, and/or that there was or is collusion between the Minister, the Chairman and the plaintiff to make profit for themselves or squander public funds.’

The trial judge held that the words complained of did not bear the meanings attributed to them in paragraphs 4 and 9 of the Statement of Claim and counsel for the appellant has accepted this finding. He has submitted, however, that these paragraphs did not plead a true innuendo in the legal sense of the term but what has been called a false or popular innuendo: see Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. [1964] A.C. 234; and that this being so, the court should not merely look at the meaning attributed to the passages complained of in these paragraphs, but should consider the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used: Grubb v. Bristol United Press Ltd. [1963] 1 Q.B. 309. This, he submits, the learned trial judge failed to do.

Counsel for the respondents agreed that it was proper to look at the natural meaning of the words but he submitted that the trial judge had done so. The passage of the judgement on which he relied in reference to the words complained of in paragraph 3 of the statement of Claim (which the judge called Passage A) reads as follows-