Princewill Odikanwa V. Chief Joseph D. Iheanacho (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Imo State High Court sitting at Iho whereby the Plaintiff, now Respondent, was awarded the sum of N500,000.00 as general damages for slander. The Appellant, who was the Defendant at the trial court, aggrieved by the decision delivered on 16th June, 2004 by G.C. Ihekire, J, filed his Notice of Appeal on 21st June, 2004. The original notice of appeal has five grounds of appeal. By leave granted to the Appellant on 28th February, 2006 to amend the notice of appeal and argue additional grounds of appeal three additional grounds were filed.

At the trial court the parties filed and exchanged pleadings.

The cause of action for the Plaintiff/Respondent’s claim of the sum of N5,000,000.00 [five million Naira] as general damages for slander is articulated in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the amended statement of claim to wit –

3. On the 6th day of March, 1998 at a night vigil in honour of the deceased father of the Defendant in the compound of the Defendant’s late, father at Umuduruonyeama, Umudim, Ikedura, the Defendant falsely and maliciously, by means of a public address system, spoke and published of and concerning the Plaintiff to all persons present at the vigil, [which included Chief [Dr] Iwueze, Adolphus Nnamdi Iheanacho, Chief Emmanuel Apele, Chief Godwin Emele and many others] the following words –

Onye wu ahu kporo onwe ya Dibianta. Awum Dibraukwu. Ganu kpo Dibianta Iheanacho ka obia Agaa, Dibianata Iheanacho bu a rat nga mno ihe oma eme bu nani igbu madu. Obia ngaa na abalia, a ga eji oso gbalaga

4. The above words when translated into English language means-

who is that person that calls himself Dibianta? I am Dibiaukwu. Go and call Iheanacho to come here. Dibianta

Iheanacho is a rat to me the only thing he knows how to do is kill human beings.

If he comes here this night he will take to his heels.

5. All the people at the said vigil understood the Defendant to be saying that the Plaintiff is not a native Doctor or traditional healer but a murderer whose stock in trade is to kill human beings while camouflaging as a traditional.
6. By reason of the premises, the plaintiff has been greatly injured in his credit, character and reputation and has been brought to public scandal ridicule and contempt.

The Plaintiff/Respondent had earlier in the pleading described himself as “a traditional healer, a big time farmer, an independent oil marketer and a philanthropist in Umudim Ikeduru Local Government Area”. He stated further in the amended statement of claim that “since the publication of the above slanderous words concerning [him] he no longer commands the public respect which he formerly had an his clientele as a traditional healer had considerably diminished”.

In his amended statement of defence the Appellant vehemently denied ever uttering the alleged slanderous words either in vernacular or any other language. It is further averred in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Amended statement of defence thus –

5. In further answer thereto the Defendant states that he never or at all said and published any of the words pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Amended statement of claim or any similar words. Rather, the Defendant in the said night vigil which was attended by many people admonished and preached to those in attendance to accept the gospel message. He informed the people that they did not gather to mourn his deceased father but to send him off. He added that they should realize that in the might [sic] name of Jesus every knee shall bow. He further stated that the Almighty God had stepped into Umudim and that Umudini was for Jesus and they must worship the Almighty God. The persons whose names appear in paragraph 4 of the Amended statement of claim did not attend. It was a Christian vigil.
6. The proceedings at the night vigil including all that the Defendant said there at were recorded with a video recorder and evidence of the same will be led at the trial.
7. In further answer there to the Defendant states that he did not call the Plaintiff a non-entity, a very dangerous man who is a murderer, a wicked man who should not be associated with either in vernacular or in any other language.

Five witnesses, including the Plaintiff [now the Respondent, testified to establish the Amended statement of claim. The defence called three witnesses.The Appellant, as the Defendant, did not testify. Thereafter both counsel delivered their addresses. The learned trial judge in his reserved judgment, after evaluation of the evidence of the parties, held inter alia at page 73 of the record-

I hold that the words, which the PW.2 and PW.3 said were spoken by the Defendant, are exactly the words the defendant spoke in Igbo Language at the night vigil of his late father. The Plaintiff told the court that his name is Chief Joseph Dibianta Iheanacho. This evidence was not denied by the Defendant. From the totality of the evidence of both the PW.2 and PW.3, it is very clear that the words spoken by the Defendant were directed at him.

The Defendant even referred to the Plaintiff by name.

Finding the Appellant liable for slander, the learned trial judge ordered the Appellant to pay N500,000,00 as general damages to the Respondent. Hence this appeal. The Appellant filed a total of eight [8] grounds comprising five [5] original grounds and three [3] additional grounds. The grounds without their particulars are:-