Mrs. Eva Anike Akomolafe & Anor V. Guardian Press Ltd. (Printers) & Ors (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, J.C.A.

The appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Lagos State, Lagos Judicial Division delivered on the 7th of October, 1999 in suit No. LD/256/86. The appellants who were the plaintiffs before that court had claimed against the respondents who were the defendants in the court below damages for libel published of and concerning them as follows:
“(1) N8 million (Eight million Naira) being damages for libel published of and concerning the 1st plaintiff.

(2) N3,105,000.00 (Three million one hundred and five thousand Naira) being damages for libel published of and concerning the 2nd plaintiff.

(3) An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents from further publishing the said and/or similar words of the plaintiffs.

The alleged libellous words said to have been falsely and maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiffs (now the appellants) by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants (respondents) in the issue of THE GUARDIAN newspaper dated the 2nd of September, 1985 at pages 1 and 12 under the headline COMPANIES REGISTRY IN SHAMBLES in the way of their profession and office and of their conduct therein are as follows:-

The Guardian discovered that agents touts and clerical staff and sometimes highly placed officials of the registry have been doing brisk illegal business at the Registry and Nepotism has also featured in the list of companies (sic) being levelled at the Registry. It is common knowledge at the Registry that the husband of one of the top most officials at the Registry is a lawyer with an office in the business centre of Lagos Island. It is said that the husband also registers companies for clients and the fact of his wife being a top official at the Registrar could be an exploitable coincidence. The Guardian saw a complimentary card which the lawyer husband had minuted to his wife requesting that a client be helped to register a company.

In the issue of THE GUARDIAN newspaper of 6th October, 1985, the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants/respondents were said to have falsely and maliciously written, printed and published of and concerning the 1st plaintiff/appellant in the way of her profession and office and of her conduct therein the following words:-

Indeed as rightly pointed out in your report, the situation has been further compounded by bare-faced nepotism and utter insensitivity in high quarters and As a first step, the inept leadership at the Registry must be changed forthwith in order to give office a fresh lease of life. Secondly, a thorough investigation must be set in motion to probe the allegations of corruption, graft and nepotism said to pervade the place.

Again in paragraph 11 of the amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs/appellants have credited the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants/respondents as printing and publishing of the 1st plaintiff/appellant and of her profession and office and conduct in the issue of THE GUARDIAN newspaper of the 9th of December, 1985 the following words:-
“The Registry was closed down a day after the Guardian On Sunday, carried a front-page report detailing the graft, corruption, nepotism and the storage cum retrieval (sic) problems said to be hampering efficiency and fair-play at the Registry. One of the immediate steps taken to reorganize it was the retirement of the former Registrar, Mrs. A. E. Akomolafe”.

Pleadings, in terms of amended statement of claim, statement of defence of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, the amended statement of the 4th defendant and the amended reply to the defence were filed and exchanged between the parties. Evidence was called by both sides and after taking the addresses of their respective counsel, the learned trial Judge, in a reserved judgment delivered on the 7th of October, 1999 upheld the defences raised by the defendants/respondents and consequently dismissed the suit in its entirety.

Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the plaintiffs have appealed therefrom to this court upon a notice of appeal which carries four grounds.

With the leave of the court four additional grounds of appeal were added. With the leave of court the appellants filed an amended brief of argument on the 9th of January, 2003 while the respondents filed a joint brief of argument on the 18th of February, 2003. Two issues are distilled by the appellants as arising for determination by this court and as set out in the amended brief of the appellants they are in the following terms:-
(1) Was the learned trial Judge not in error in failing to hold that the charge of nepotism levelled against the plaintiffs was defamatory of the plaintiffs?
(2) Was the learned trial Judge right in holding that the publications complained of did not refer to the plaintiffs?

While accepting, in substance, the first issue formulated by the appellants, the respondents have reframed same in their brief of argument in the following words:-
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the charge of nepotism levelled against the plaintiffs was not defamatory?
(2) Whether or not the articles are libellous?

When this appeal came before us for argument on the 8th of April, 2003 Chief G. O. K. Ajayi, SAN learned counsel for the appellants adopted his clients’ amended brief of argument filed on the 9th of January, 2003 and by way of highlighting the salient parts of the arguments contained in the said amended appellants’ brief, submitted that the facts before the court do not support the allegation of nepotism and that the findings of the learned trial Judge do not support the defence put up by the defendants asserting their right to criticise in the interest of the public he urged that the appeal be  allowed. Mr. T. E. Williams, learned counsel for the respondents while adopting his clients afore-mentioned brief of argument by way of emphasis, learned counsel, after reviewing the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Judge rightly upheld the submissions of their counsel on the defence put up as, according to him, the plaintiffs/appellants were unable to prove that the publication was actuated by malice. He finally urged that the appeal be dismissed.