J.I. Okolo v. Midwest Newspaper Corporation & ORS. (1977)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. O. OBASEKI, J.S.C. 

This appeal is against the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for 50,000pounds damages for libel by Kassim J. in his judgement in suit No. LD/602/71 delivered on the 1st day of February, 1974 in the High Court at Lagos.

More particularly, the claim endorsed on the Writ of Summons reads:

“1. The Defendants are the proprietors, Administrators and Editors of the Nigerian Observer, a Newspaper which has a larger circulation throughout Nigeria, especially in Lagos, Midwest, Northern Nigerian States and the East Central State.

2. In the issue of Saturday, July 31, 1971, the Defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff the words following, that is to say in the 1st column page 4 of that issue, to wit,-viz:

2,000.00pounds Suit Adjourned

A Lagos High Court has adjourned hearing till September 13 in the 2,000.00pounds embezzlement suit against a Lagos Building Contractor, Mr. J.I. Okolo”

3. The above published words impute a criminal charge or offence against the plaintiff which is false and malicious.
4. By the publication of the said words, the plaintiff has been much injured in his credit and reputation and has suffered damages”.

Pleadings were ordered, filed and duly delivered and the material facts which formed the basis of the claim were pleaded in paragragh 6, 7, 9, 11 of the Statement of claim as followings:

6. The said Newspaper ‘The Nigerian Observer’ published by all the four defendants jointly and severally have a wide and large circulation at Lagos and throughout the whole of Nigeria.
7. In the said issue of ‘the Nigerian Observer’ of Saturday, July 31st, 1971, the defendants jointly and severally, falsely and maliciously printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff the words following, that is to say, in the first column of page 4 of that issue, to wit viz: 2,000.00pounds (Two thousand pounds only) suit adjourned”. “A Lagos High Court has adjourned hearing till September 13th, (hearing) in the 2000.00pounds (Two thousand pounds only) embezzlement suit against a Lagos building contractor, Mr. J.I. Okolo”.
8. The above published words impute a criminal charge or offence against the plaintiff, which is false and malicious.
9. The plaintiff, as a result of the above mentioned libelous matter, has lost a of business contracts and goodwill in business throughout the different parts of Nigeria, where the said Newspaper circulates and is read thereby causing him a great financial loss.

11 By the publication of the said words, the defendants allege dishonesty against the plaintiff in his trade and business both as a businessman and as a general contractor which includes building, engineering and various types of contract and injury to his person, credit, reputation which caused him so much damage as indicated and pointed out in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim”.

The publication was admitted by the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants in paragraphs 4 and 5 of their pleadings but denied in paragraph 6 and 7 that the said publication had any defamatory meaning. The said paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Statement of Defence read:

“4 The 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants admit paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Statement of Claim;

5. The 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants admit publishing the words sot out in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim but say that the said words form part of the entire publication on the matter as contained in page 4 column 1 of the Nigerian Observer issue of July 31, 1971. The said defendants will rely on the entire publication
6. The words as contained in the entire publication do not mean what is alleged in paragraphs 8 and 11 of the Statement of Claim.
7. The said words without the said alleged meaning are not libel.”

The plaintiff gave evidence and called 3 witnesses – Godfrey Eze, Ree Onyezenez and Catherine Okolo who also testified. The defence adduced no evidence and after Counsel for the parties had address the Court, the learned trial judge gave a considered judgement wherein he held that

“In my capacity as a judge, I am of the opinion that, the said words complained of, stated as they are out of con, are capable of conveying defamatory meaning: but in my position as a jury, I take into consideration the letters, figures and words, all very bold, which form the heading of the publication to wit “$2,000 suit Adjourned” and the paragraphs which follow the words in question and I doubt if they in fact convey a defamatory meaning. “… I dismiss plaintiff’s claim and proceed to assess costs”.

Five grounds of appeal were filed and argued together, but the main point canvased before us is that “The learned trial judge having held that as a matter of Law, the words complained of were capable of defamatory meaning, there being no evidence from the defence, there was no evidence on which he could find as a fact (from the jury box) that the words were not defamatory”.

For a better appreciation of the points raised in the grounds, we hereunder set out the 5 grounds of appeal in full