Newswatch Communications Limited V. Alhaji Aliyu Ibrahim Atta (2006)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

TOBI, J.S.C.

This appeal has so much to do with dates and all that. It is an appeal in which the appellant complains of denial of fair hearing on the ground that the learned trial Judge refused its application to arrest the judgment delivered on 9th May, 1996. It is a case where the appellant, who was the defendant, had not the time to present its defence in court but finally had all the time in the world to file a motion to arrest the judgment delivered on 9th May, 1996. Fair hearing is fair hearing when and if it is fair to both parties.

It is a case of libel. The respondent as plaintiff sued the defendant/the appellant, for libel. The plaintiff claimed N25,000,000.00 damages for libel published by the defendant in the Newswatch Magazine Volume 19, No.11 of 14th March, 1994 at page 7 under the story titled FRUITS OF HIS LABOUR. The plaintiff also needed a perpetual injunction and he asked for it. The plaintiff was a former Inspector-General of Police. The offending publication reads:

“There is this little story about him making the rounds in Kam Salem House which we thought Ajudua would like to hear. He is said to be a very close friend of former I.G., Aliyu Atta. One day, the story goes, Atta was holding a meeting with top police officers when he was informed that a very important visitor had stormed the Police Headquarters. The I.G., not one to keep an important visitor waiting promptly (yes) called off the meeting. As the top police officers filed out of the I.G.’s office, they were shocked to find that Oga’s very important visitor was, wait for it, Ajudua. Ajudua grumble, grumble. We hear some of the top Police Officers are still smarting over that incident.”

The plaintiff’s case as narrated by the learned trial Judge in the judgment is that the plaintiff was in breach of his oath of office giving undue protection and respect to Chief Fred Ajudua, who was at all times material to the publication suspected of having committed some criminal offences or that the said Chief Fred Ajudua is a personal friend of the plaintiff and was thereby immune to any arrest or questioning or any other police procedure that was necessary to determine his involvement in the commission of the offence. Plaintiff also averred that the words complained of in the article in their ordinary and natural meaning meant and were understood to mean:

“(a) That the plaintiff was unfit to hold the office of the Inspector-General of Police by reason of favouritism, undue respect for members of the public over and above his official duties as Inspector-General and neglect of Police procedure and protocol.

(b) That by virtue of his friendship with Chief Fred Ajudua the plaintiff was prepared to cancel or call off any important meeting with his subordinates in order to attend to mere personal visits.

(c) That the plaintiff in breach of his Oath of Office gave undue preference and regard to a member of the public over his official duties as a Police Officer and in consequence of all these the plaintiff had been seriously injured in his character and reputation in respect of his profession and office as Inspector-General of Police and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt.

The defendant was duly served the statement of claim. Although the defendant was served with the statement of claim before the hearing of the case it did not file a statement of defence until after PW3 gave evidence. The defendant filed a statement of defence and a counter-claim. The defendant counter-claimed N30,000,000.00 from the plaintiff as damages for libel as well as an order of injunction. And so both slammed at the other a libel suit and an injunction to match. The defendant’s claim was N5,000,000.00 more than that of the plaintiff in terms of damages.

The matter went for hearing. That was on 18/1/95. Two witnesses were taken that day. The plaintiff was one. Alhaji Musa Maiyaki Ajayi was another. He was PW2 and the plaintiff was PW1. PW2 was not cross-examined because of the absence of counsel for the appellant. The matter was adjourned to 21/2/95 for continuation of hearing. Fresh hearing notices were ordered to be sent to the defendant. Came 21/2/95, counsel for the defendant was not in court. The court took PW3 and adjourned the matter to 9/3/95. On 9/3/95, counsel for the defendant brought two motions, one for extension of time to file statement of defence and counter-claim out of time and the other for an order of court granting leave to the defendant to recall all the plaintiff’s witnesses who had testified for cross-examination. The motion for extension of time to file statement of defence and counter-claim was not opposed and it was duly granted. The motion for recall of the witnesses was opposed. An adjournment was granted counsel for the plaintiff to prepare his submission in opposition to the motion. But before the matter was adjourned to 11/4/95, the evidence of PW4 was taken. On 11/4/95, both counsel addressed the court on the issue of recall of the witnesses of the plaintiff for cross-examination. The matter was adjourned to 24/4/95 for ruling. In his ruling, the learned trial Judge reluctantly granted the motion for recall of the witnesses for cross-examination. In his ruling 24/4/95, the learned trial Judge, Gumi, J. (as he then was) said, and I will quote him in extenso at pages 62 and 63 of the record. The Judge made reference to his earlier ruling on 18/1/95 when he said on that day:

“In view of the foregoing it seems to me that the defendants and their counsel are by their conduct

deliberately trying to delay the take off of this matter and that I shall not permit.”

Quoting the above in his ruling of 24/4/95, and referring to same, the Judge continued:

“By that ruling, it is clear that the court was not impressed by the conduct of the defendants/applicants at that stage. Even after that they again refused to appear at the next date of hearing when more witnesses were taken. If the defendants/applicants and or their counsel had appeared on the occasions when the witnesses were taken, they would have cross-examined those witnesses.