People?s Voice Communication Ltd. & Anor V. Alhaji Mohammed Lawal & Anor (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JA’AFARU  MIKA’ILU J.C.A.

The respondents as plaintiffs instituted an action by way of writ of summons against the appellants/defendants. The writ of summons was dated 28th August, 2000 and filed before the Kwara State High Court of  Justice, on 28th July, 2000.

The claim against the appellants as per paragraph 20 of the statement of claim is shows as follows:
1. The 1st plaintiff claims the sum of N500 million naira as damages for libel published of and concerning the 1st plaintiff, the following words under captioned “LATEST ON N600M SCAM GOV. SEEKS LEGISLATORS, MONARCHS’ HELP” the particulars of which are stated in paragraph 7 above as contained in Vol. 1 No. 28 of the July 20-26 edition of the People’s Advocate, published by the 1st defendant and edited by the 2nd defendant.

2. The 2nd plaintiff claims, the sum of N200 million damages for the libel published of and concerning the 2nd plaintiff the following words under the captioned “LATEST ON N600M FINANCIAL SCAM GOV. SEEKS LEGISLATORS, MONARCHS’, HELP” particulars of which are stated in paragraph 7 above as contained in vol.! No. 28 of the July 20 – 26 edition of the People’s Advocate published by the 1st defendant and edited by the 2nd defendant.

3. An order of injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their agents, servants or howsoever called from further writing or publishing or causing to be written, printed or circulated or otherwise publishing of the plaintiffs the said similar libel.

This was suit No. KWS/89/2000 and the same date suit KWS/90/2000 was filed by them. Then the respondent/ plaintiffs through motion ex parte obtained an interim order from the court which reads as follows:
“It is hereby ordered that the defendants/respondents be and are hereby restrained whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or whatsoever called from further writing, printing or causing to be published or printed or circulated or otherwise publishing (sic of and concerning the plaintiffs the libel contained in vol. 1 No. 28 of July 20-26, 2000 edition of the People’s Advocate titled “LATEST ON N600 FINANCIAL SCAM GOV. SEEKS LEGISLATORS, MONARCHS’ HELP” or similar libel, pending the determination of the motion on notice.
Motion on notice is adjourned to 10th day of August, 2000, for hearing.
Given at Ilorin under the seal of the court and the Hand of the Presiding Judge this 28th day of July, 2000.”

The appellants on their part came up with a motion on notice dated and filed 1st August, 2000, praying the trial court for the following:-
“(i) An order striking out and or dismissing the plaintiffs’ action/actions as:-
(a) same discloses or disclose no reasonable cause of action against any of the defendants and/or;
(b) same constitutes or contribute an abuse of the process of court and/or;
(c) same intends or intend to curtail, infringe and breach the defendants constitutional rights and/or;
(d) plaintiff have no locus standi to institute this action and/or;
(e) same is/are not properly constituted.

(ii) An order striking out the entire action/actions as same is/are not properly constituted and as such does/do not vest any jurisdiction on the court to adjudicate upon.

(iii) An order setting aside or discharging the ex parte order made against the defendants by this Honourable court on 28th July, 2000 and on the grounds that:
(a) plaintiff’s misled the court to grant or make the order;
(b) plaintiff’s misrepresented facts to the court to obtain order;
(c) order of ex parte injunction cannot be made in this type of case;
(d) and for such further order(s) as this Honourable court may deem to make in the circumstances of this case.”

The trial court having heard the parties on the above motion delivered its ruling on 22nd August, 2000, in which it dismissed the application as groundless, unfounded, as well as lacking in merit. On 10th August, 2000, the appellants appealed against the grant of the ex-parte motion. Dissatisfied with the ruling of 22nd August, 2000, the appellant also filed an appeal before this court containing ten grounds of appeal which has subsumed the earlier appeal. The ten grounds of appeal are:-

1. The learned trial Judge erred in law by holding that each of the plaintiffs has locus standi to institute this action against the defendants.

2. The learned trial Judge erred in law by holding thus:
“it is erroneous and also misconceived of the learned Counsel to the defendants, Chief Olanipekun, (SAN) to have submitted that with the ex parte order granted the plaintiff on 28/7/2000, there has been a conclusion that libel had been committed by defendants. It is erroneous and misconceived because the wordings of that order were not that of the court. The wordings in the order contained reliefs which the applicants were seeking for and the reliefs were set out in their application papers. The court in its ruling set out supra merely asked the registrar of the court to draw out the order accordingly”.

3. The learned trial judge misdirected herself in law by conclusively holding and determining as follows:-
“Suffice it to say that the words would be understood by reasonable people to refer (sic) to the plaintiff”.

4. The learned trial judge erred in law and also abdicated her duty by her failure to make a pronouncement on the submission or that an ex parte injunction is not usually issued or granted in a libel matter, particularly a libel matter like the one before her.