Mazi Augustine Akahie V. Sister Mary Ochulor (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of Abia State High Court in Suit No. Hu/9/2012, delivered by Hon. Justice S.A. Nwakanma on 18/2/14 wherein the trial Court found the Appellant liable for defamation and ordered the Appellant to pay N200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) to the Respondent in damages and to apologise to her (Respondent), using the community means of disseminating information.

Appellant was the defendant at the Court below. The Plaintiff (now Respondent) had filed the Suit on 25/1/2012 claiming as follows, in a very terse Writ of Summons:

“WHEREAS the Claimant Claim (sic) against the Defendant

(1) An apology from two National Newspapers and one Local Radio Station in Abia State, two million naira only for defaming the Claimant by spreading false rumor, “That the Claimant Mary Ochulor stripped herself naked and threw herself on the ground on the 14th day of September, 2011.”

The facts of the case, in brief, says that the Appellant defamed the Respondent, a Vice Principal of a Girls’ Secondary School in Umuahia, when the Appellant’s Kinsmen destroyed the graves of the Respondent’s Late Father and that of her younger brother, Udochukwu Ochulor, on 14/9/2011; that Appellant started spreading rumours within the vicinity that on the aforesaid date, the Respondent threw herself naked and removed her wrapper; that this rumour was heard by a lot of people including one Brother Emeka Nwachukwu (a member of the Respondent’s church); that also when the Respondent’s younger brother John Ochulor instituted an action (HU/148/2011) against the people who destroyed the grave of his late father, the Appellant also made the same libelous statement in his statement on oath, dated 20th October 2011, paragraph 11 thereof, thereby embarrassing and humiliating the Respondent.

Appellant and the Respondent are from the same Community, Amizi Olokoro in Umuahia South Local Government Area of Abia State and are neighbours. Appellant said that sometime in September 2011, the Respondent and her brother John tried to beautify the graves of their late father and brother in front of their house, which graves were near the road leading to the compound of the Appellant; that the cement blocks used to extend the construction blocked the road, preventing driving into Appellant’s compound and those of his kinsmen; that every appeal, protest and effort of the Appellant’s Kinsmen to get the Respondent and her brother to remove the obstruction were rebuffed, including the order by Umuahia Capital Development Authority (UCDA); that finally the UCDA, on 24/6/2011, came to remove the offensive projection, which blocked the only entrance to their compound; that while the workers of the UCDA were knocking out the offensive construction made by the Respondent and her brother, the Respondent removed the cloth (wrapper) she had on her and exposed her nakedness and threw herself into the work, all in the protest to force the UCDA workers to stop what they were doing; that because the UCDA workers could not withstand the obscene nakedness of an adult woman staring in their faces they had to abandon the work half way; Appellant said though he was not at the scene, some members of their community also witnessed the shameful incident; that they had to arrange to remove the debris of the demolition, done by the UCDA workers, when the latter failed to come back to clear same; that that was on 14/9/11, and thereby clearing the road for use; that the Respondent and her brother then sued Appellant’s kinsmen in Suit No. HU/148/2011 and join the UCDA as the 5th Defendant, claiming for malicious damage, trespass and injunction. The said Suit No. HU/148/2011, Appellant said failed and was non-suited, as the UCDA General Manager and staff gave evidence to own up the demolition of the offensive structure.

Appellant then showed that the claim of the Respondent in the Suit No. HU/9/2012 was founded on the witness statement, filed by the Defendants in HU/148/2011, wherein they deposed to the fact that the Respondent, infact, exposed her nakedness as a way of protest against UCDA workers on the day of demolition of the offensive structure built by the Respondent in this appeal and her brother, John.

After hearing the case, HU/9/12, the learned trial judge (who also heard the Suit No. HU/148/2011 and non-suited the case) held for the Respondent, as follows:

“It is obvious from the above evidence, that the claimant was not naked during the event under reference. The mere fact that an occasion is privileged does not make every publication made a privileged one. In the instant case, the Defendant went beyond facts that are strictly necessary.

There was absolutely no need for the defendant to use the offending words particularly when the main subject matter was the issue as to who destroyed the structure of the Claimant in suit No HU/148/2011. It is apparent that malice was shown in the offending words and where, and where malice is shown, it will rob the publication of any element of good faith and one not clothed with the regalia of fair comments in the public interest.

The plea of justification by the Defence cannot be sustained due to the evidence led by DW2. The Defendant under Cross-examination admitted that the claimant was not naked but had a semblance of clothing. ‘Naked’ is defined in Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary as “not wearing any clothes … I therefore order that the Defendant uses the Community means of dissemination of information to apologize to the claimant. The Defendant is to pay the sum of N200,000. (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) for defaming the Claimant.” See pages 99-100 of the Records of Appeal.

That is the judgment Appellant appealed against, as per his Notice of Appeal on pages 101 to 106 of the Records, disclosing 5 grounds of Appeal. Appellant filed his brief of argument on 25/9/2014 and distilled 3 issues for the determination of the appeal, namely:

(1) Whether the statement of the Appellant made in a witness Deposition in a Court proceedings in the suit NO. HU/148/2011 was actionable to be liable for malice and defamation as held by the trial Court? (Ground 1 and 4)