Professor Kingsley Owoniyi Ologe & Ors. V. New Africa Holdings Limited (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Holden at Abuja Division in appeal no. CA/A/81/98 delivered on the 13th day of February, 2002 dismissing the appeal of appellant against the judgment of the Federal Capital City High Court, in suit No.FCT/HC/CV/572/94 in which the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, now appellants before this court.

The appellants, as plaintiffs instituted the action against the respondent claiming damages for libel arising from a publication in the Democrat Newspaper published by the respondent in its edition of 27th June, 1994. The respondent raised the defence of qualified privilege.

In its judgment the trial court found that the defence of qualified privilege availed the respondent but went on to award damages to the appellants in the sum of N120,000.00.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, appellants appealed to the lower court while the respondent cross appealed against the award of N120,000.00 damages.

The lower court held that the publication in question was not defamatory of the appellants and as such the trial court was in error in awarding the damages complained of, thereby dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross appeal. The instant appeal is against the said judgment, the issues for the determination of which have been identified by learned counsel for appellants, IKECHUKWU EZECHUKWU ESQ in the appellants’ brief filed on 6th July, 2004 and adopt in argument of the appeal on the 15th day of January, 2013 as follows:-

“1. Whether the publication of 27th June, 1994 in the democrat by the respondent was a fair and accurate copy of the Press Release issued by the University of Abuja i.e. Exhibit “B” and if not whether the said publication is defamatory of the appellants (Ground 1).

2. Whether the word “admitted” has the same meaning with the word “committed” within the con of the Press Release and the publication of 27th June, 1994 and, if not, whether the substitution of the word “committed” with the word “admitted” in the said publication affected the substance of the Press Release (Ground 2).
3. Whether the defence of qualified privilege availed the defendant/Cross-Appellant”

Learned counsel for respondent OLABISI O. SOYEBO ESQ also formulated three issues for determination, which issues are substantially the same as those of appellants reproduced supra. I therefore have no need to reproduce them herein.

In arguing Issue 1, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the publication of 27th June, 1994, Exhibit “A”, which purports to be a reproduction of the University of Abuja Press Release is defamatory of the appellant because it is not a fair and accurate copy of Exhibit “B”; that respondent falsely and maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause substituted the phrase “having committed” arson, looting etc with the phrase “having admitted” acts of arson, looting etc; that the use of the substituted phrase made Exhibit “A” false and materially and substantially changed the meaning of the whole Press-Release; that whereas the phrase “having committed” conveys the impression that the acts complained of are mere allegations and subject to disputation, etc, etc, the phrase “having admitted” portrays appellants as self-confessed criminals i.e. arsonists and looters.

It is the further submission of learned counsel that the impression conveyed by Exhibits “A” that appellants are self confessed criminals cannot be anything but defamatory as the same portrays appellants to the parents of their students and the reading public as:-

(i) A disappointment and a disgrace to their fellow Dons and society who look upon them as Icons of high moral rectitude.

(ii) That the society’s trust in them that made them entrust the guidance and education of their children upon their hands was largely misplaced.

Relying on Okolo v. Midwest News Papers Corporation (1977) 1 S.C 23 at 38, counsel submitted that the substitution of the phrases made Exhibit “A” false being an inaccurate reproduction of Exhibit “B” and therefore defamatory of the appellants and urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the appellants.

On his part, learned counsel for respondent reproduced Exhibit “A” and stated that a comparison of Exhibit “A” and “B” show that the two publications were the same, the only difference being in the substitution of the word “admitted” for “committed” in paragraph 1 of the said Exhibit “A”; that where the whole report is a substantially accurate account of what took place, the fact that there are few slight inaccuracies is immaterial, particularly where the inaccuracy is not of a substantial nature, relying on Emeagwara v. Star Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd. (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt.769) 489 at 504 – 505; that the publication be viewed liberally as there was no malicious intention of defaming the appellants; that the court should hold that the publication was a fair and accurate report; that the test for the determination of the issue as to whether the word used in a publication is defamatory is objective; that is, how a reasonable man coming in contact with them will understand them, relying on Dimbo v. Idogboe (1983) 1 SCNLR 25 at 45: that any reasonable man would not understand it to be libelous and urged the court to resolve the issue against appellant.