LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

ALALADE v. AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS LTD (2022)

ALALADE v. AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS LTD

(2022)LCN/16176(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, January 14, 2022

CA/IB/184/2016

Before Our Lordships:

Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdul-Azeez Waziri Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

OLUSEGUN ALALADE APPELANT(S)

And

AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

DEFINITION OF THE TERM “LIBEL”

In the case of: – GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LTD. & ANOTHER VS. REV. PASTOR C. I. AJEH (2011) 10 NWLR PART 1256 PAGE 574. Libel was defined as a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures or signs: any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another, a false and unprivileged publication in writing of a defamatory material; a malicious written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person’s reputation or to expose him to public hatred or ridicule, contempt or to injure him in his business or profession.

For a Plaintiff to succeed in libel, he must prove three fundamental elements of defamation constructively.
(1) That there is the publication of the material complained of by the defendant.
(2) That the publication refers to no other person but the Plaintiff conclusively.
(3) That the publication is defamatory of the Plaintiff
​There must also be proof by evidence, of a third party of the effect of the alleged publication on him i.e. the re-action of a third party to the publication.
See – SKETCH PUBLICATION CO. LTD VS AJAGBEMOKEFERI (SUPRA).
– ONU VS AGBESE (1985) 1 NWLR PART 4 PAGE 704.
– SERVICE PRESS LIMITED VS NNAMDI AZIKIWE 13 WACA PAGE 301.
– SKY BANK PLC & ANOTHER VS CHIEF MOSES BOLANLE AKINPELU (2010) 9 NWLR PART 1198 PAGE 179.
– IWUEKE VS. IMO BROADCASTING CORPORATION (2005) 17 NWLR PART 955 PAGE 447.
PER BADA, J.C.A.

DEFINITION OF “PUBLICATION”

Publication has been defined to mean the making known of the defamatory words after it was written to some person other than the person of whom it is written.
In NSIRIM VS. NSIRIM (SUPRA) it was held among others by the Supreme Court thus:-
“The cardinal principle of libel in law is that there must be Publication of the libelous matter to a third person other than the person libeled. This is because a person’s reputation is not based on the good opinion he has of himself but the estimation in which others hold him.”
See the following cases:-
– WADA NAS VS SEN ABRAHAM ADESANYA (2003) 2 NWLR PART 803 PAGE 97.

– AMUZIE VS. ASONYE (SUPRA).
In order to constitute publication, the defamatory matter must be published to a third party and not merely to the Plaintiff himself.
PER BADA, J.C.A.

FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A CLAIM FOR LIBEL TO SUCCEED

It is trite that for a claimant for libel like the Appellant herein to succeed, he must establish that he has been defamed. See: ANYAH v AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS (NIG.) LIMITED (1992) LPELR-511(SC). per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) at page 20, parse. C – D; and EBONG v UDOH (2014) LPELR-23447(CA), per Nweze, JCA (as he then was) at page 27, paras. E- F.
As to what the Plaintiff needs to prove in order to succeed, the Supreme Court, per Oputa, JSC had held in THE SKETCH PUBLISHING CO. LTD. & ANOR v AJAGBEMOKEFERI (1989) LPELR-3207(SC) at page 37, paras. A – F, that:
The tort of defamation arises because every person has a right to the protection of his good name, reputation and the estimation in which he stands in the society of his fellow citizens: Scott v. Sampson (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 491 at p. 503. Anybody who publishes anything injuring that good name, reputation or estimation commits the tort of libel (if written) and slander (if oral). The onus on the plaintiff in an action for libel is to prove that the defendant. (i) published in permanent form a Statement; (ii) that the statement referred to him; (iii) that the statement was defamatory of him.
The Appellant was therefore unable to establish publication of the alleged libelous statement before the trial Court, let alone establishing the adverse effect of the statement upon his reputation by third parties. His claim before the trial Court was bound to fail. The trial Court was therefore right when it dismissed the Appellant’s suit.
PER MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of Oyo State High Court of Justice Ibadan Judicial Division in Suit NO: I/45/2004: BETWEEN OLUSEGUN ALALADE VERSUS AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS LTD delivered on the 14th day of January 2016 wherein the Claimants claim was dismissed for failure to prove publication of the alleged libel.

Briefly the facts of this case are that by paragraph 15 of the Statement of Claim, the Claimant claims against Defendant now Respondent as follows:-
(i) The sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira Only) being damages for the libel contained in a “PUBLIC NOTICE printed and published on page 45 of the Nigerian Tribune Edition of Wednesday 12th November, 2003, wherein under a caption PUBLIC NOTICE: Guffanti (Nigeria) PLC RC 2230 “the Defendants falsely and maliciously stated of and concerning the Claimant and or concerning him in the way of his business and profession Inter alia as follows:- … OLUSEGUN A. ALALADE in his current antics is fronting for certain Italians…”
(ii) INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants and each of them whether by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise from publishing or causing to be published the said or any similar words defamatory of the Claimant.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties. At the conclusion of hearing the learned Trial Judge dismissed the Claimant’s claim for failure to prove the alleged libel.
The Appellant who was dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court appealed to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are set out as follows:-
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge of the lower Court applied the principles of the Law of Defamation correctly to the facts of this case when he came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of publication of Exhibit “B” (Public Notice in the Tribune Newspaper of 12th of November 2003 at page 560 of the record) by the Defendant before his Court. (Distilled from grounds 3 and 4 of the Notice of appeal).
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge of the lower Court evaluated the evidence admitted by him properly and applied the principles of the Law of Defamation correctly when he came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that the Claimant/Appellant suffered low esteem or damage to his reputation because “the Claimant was the only person that gave evidence on the record that the Claimant suffered low esteem in reputation as a result of Exhibit B because as stated by the authorities, he cannot give evidence of his own reputation” (Distilled from Grounds 1 & 2 of the Notice of Appeal).

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The said issue is set out as follows:-
“Whether the Appellant proved or established the foremost ingredient or requirement constituting the tort of defamation i.e Publication of the words complained about (Distilled from Grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the Grounds of appeal).”

​At the hearing of this appeal on the 1st day of November, 2021 the Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of Oyo State High Court delivered on 14/1/2016. The Notice of appeal was filed 1/2/2016. The record of appeal was transmitted on 20/5/2016 and deemed as properly transmitted on 6/5/2019. The Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 11/6/2019 while the appellant’s Reply brief was filed on 8/10/2021. The said reply brief was deemed as properly filed on 1/11/2021.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted and relied on the said brief as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the Respondent’s brief filed on 9/3/2021 which was deemed as properly filed on 1/11/2021.
He adopted and relied on the said Respondent’s brief as his argument in urging that this appeal be dismissed.

I have gone through the issues formulated for the determination of the appeal by Counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the issues formulated for the determination of the appeal by the parties are more or less the same. I will therefore rely on the issue formulated for the determination of the appeal on behalf of the Respondent.

ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
“Whether the Appellant proved or established the foremost ingredient or requirement constituting the tort of defamation i.e Publication of the words complained about (Distilled from Grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the Grounds of appeal).”

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Learned trial Judge failed to apply the principles of the law of Defamation correctly to the facts of this case and consequently came to wrong conclusion that publication of Exhibit “B” (Public Notice) by the Defendant has not been proved by the Claimant/Appellant.

He referred to the Judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the assertion of the trial Court that in order to prove that a third person apart from the Plaintiff has seen the alleged publication, that a third person must come to Court to testify that he has seen it is wrong and have no basis in law.

He contended that the law of Libel states that in order to prove publication, the alleged libelous publication must have been seen by one other person apart from the Plaintiff i.e making known of the defamatory matter after it was written to some person other than the person of whom it is written. He relied on the following cases:-
– AMUZIE VS ASONYE (2011) 6 NWLR PART 1242 PAGE 19.
– EDORO VS GURARA FINANCE AND SECURITIES CO. LTD (2003) FWLR PART 142 PAGE 9.
– SCHLUMBERGER NIGERIA LTD VS ONAH (2007) ALL FWLR PART 389 PAGE 1327.

It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that publication of libel can be proved through physical testimony of a third party in Court. It was also argued that proof of publication is generally required to be made vide Admissible Evidence.

The case of – AKITI VS PUNCH NIG. LTD (2009) 11 NWLR PAGES 281 – 303 was relied upon.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant also referred to – The Learned Authors of Gatley on Libel and Slander, 12th Edition, page 202 paragraph 6, 12 at foot note 91.

​He submitted that Exhibit “B” admitted by the trial Court is prima facie evidence of publication of the alleged Libel in this case by the Defendant/Respondent. He went further in his submission that the question whether the words used in the alleged defamatory document (Exhibit “B”) is libelous of the Plaintiff and the consequential damage suffered by him is a matter left to the consideration and discretion of the lower Court and not the duty of the presumed third party witness that the Plaintiff is expected to call.

It was also argued that if a Plaintiff proves that a libel has been published of him without justification, his cause of action is complete and that the Plaintiff need not prove that he has suffered any resulting actual damage or injury to his reputation for such damage is presumed.

The following cases were relied upon:-
– ODUWOLE VS WEST (2010) 10 NWLR PART 1203 PAGE 598
– EJABULOR VS OSHA (1990) 5 NWLR PART 148 PAGE 1.
– OTOP VS EKONG (2006) 9 NWLR PART 986 PAGE 533 TO 572 AT 536.
– NEPA VS INAMETI (2002) 11 NWLR PART 778 PAGES 397 TO 436 AT 403.
It was submitted that the Judgment of the trial Court is perverse and that it should be set aside.
On evaluation, Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the trial Court did not evaluate the evidence properly.

He also submitted that Exhibit “B” apart from being false will carry defamatory meaning in the minds of reasonable persons. He stated that the trial Court approached the issue of damages on basis of wrong principles. The case of: – NEPA VS. INAMETI (SUPRA) was referred to.

It was finally submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the damage caused to the Plaintiff by the Publication of Exhibit “B” is at large.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant finally urged that the Judgment of the Trial Court be set aside and grant the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Appellant in his Statement of Claim.

In his response to the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the onus is on the party alleging publication of libel to prove same. Where a Plaintiff does not prove publication of libel, no cause of action has arisen.
He referred to the following cases:- DAIRO VS. UNION BANK OF NIG. PLC. (2007) NWLR PART 1959 PAGE 99.
– YAHAYA VS. MUNCHIKA (2000) 7 NWLR PART 664 PAGE 300 AT 313 – 314.
– GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LTD. & ANOTHER VS. REV. PASTOR AJEH (2011) 46.NSCQR PAGE 254 AT 288.
– NSIRIM VS. NSIRIM (1990) 3 NWLR PART 138 PAGE 285.
– SKETCH PUBLISHING CO. LTD. VS. AJAGBEMOKEFERI (1989) NWLR PART 100 PAGE 678.
– AMUZIE VS. ASONYE (SUPRA)

The learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that the Trial Court was right when it found that none of the two writers in Exhibit “C” and “C1” expressed any adverse opinion about the Claimant.

He finally submitted that the Appellant failed to prove the essential ingredient of libel which is Publication. He urged that the Appeal be dismissed.

RESOLUTION
In the case of: – GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LTD. & ANOTHER VS. REV. PASTOR C. I. AJEH (2011) 10 NWLR PART 1256 PAGE 574. Libel was defined as a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures or signs: any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another, a false and unprivileged publication in writing of a defamatory material; a malicious written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person’s reputation or to expose him to public hatred or ridicule, contempt or to injure him in his business or profession.

For a Plaintiff to succeed in libel, he must prove three fundamental elements of defamation constructively.
(1) That there is the publication of the material complained of by the defendant.
(2) That the publication refers to no other person but the Plaintiff conclusively.
(3) That the publication is defamatory of the Plaintiff
​There must also be proof by evidence, of a third party of the effect of the alleged publication on him i.e. the re-action of a third party to the publication.
See – SKETCH PUBLICATION CO. LTD VS AJAGBEMOKEFERI (SUPRA).
– ONU VS AGBESE (1985) 1 NWLR PART 4 PAGE 704.
– SERVICE PRESS LIMITED VS NNAMDI AZIKIWE 13 WACA PAGE 301.
– SKY BANK PLC & ANOTHER VS CHIEF MOSES BOLANLE AKINPELU (2010) 9 NWLR PART 1198 PAGE 179.
– IWUEKE VS. IMO BROADCASTING CORPORATION (2005) 17 NWLR PART 955 PAGE 447.

Publication has been defined to mean the making known of the defamatory words after it was written to some person other than the person of whom it is written.
In NSIRIM VS. NSIRIM (SUPRA) it was held among others by the Supreme Court thus:-
“The cardinal principle of libel in law is that there must be Publication of the libelous matter to a third person other than the person libeled. This is because a person’s reputation is not based on the good opinion he has of himself but the estimation in which others hold him.”
See the following cases:-
– WADA NAS VS SEN ABRAHAM ADESANYA (2003) 2 NWLR PART 803 PAGE 97.

– AMUZIE VS. ASONYE (SUPRA).
In order to constitute publication, the defamatory matter must be published to a third party and not merely to the Plaintiff himself.

In proof of his case before the Trial Court the Appellant testified for himself and tendered in evidence Exhibit “B” i.e. the Newspaper which contained the publication complained about. The publication is reproduced as follows:-
PUBLIC NOTICE
GUFFANTI (NIGERIA) PLC (RC. 2230)
“1. It has come to the attention of the Management and Board of Directors of Guffanti (Nigeria) Plc. RC 2230 that one OLUSEGUN A. ALALADE, a CONGENITTALLY LITIGIOUS CHARACTER, who does NOT own one single share in GUFFANTI (NIGERIA) PLC has caused to be published in the Nigerian Tribune of 6th November, 2003 a statement purporting to contain the decisions of a KANGAROO Extra Ordinary General Meeting which he convened and got held on the 4th of November, 2003 in spite of the fact that the issue of his self-assumed right so to do under Section 215 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. 59, has still to be pronounced upon by the Federal High Court, Lagos in Suit Number FHC/L/CS/987/03, further hearing on which has been adjourned to 13th November, 2003.
2. Furthermore Members of the PROPERLY CONSTITUTED BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the Company have in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1044/03 challenged the legality of the purported decisions of OLUSEGUN A. ALALADE’S Kangaroo Extra Ordinary General Meeting.
3. OLUSEGUN A. ALALADE in his current antics is fronting for certain Italians who (as claimed by the Company in Lagos High Court Suit No. ID/1320/98) have benefitted from over THIRTEEN MILLION United States dollars ($13,000,000.00) comprising TWENTY PERCENT (20%) of Federal Government Contract sums officially permitted to be remitted abroad to enable the Company pay for its Plant & Machinery Procurement but which as now known from UNIMPEACHABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE has been DIVERTED over the years into the GUFFANTI PRIVATE BANK ACCOUNT at LUGANO in SWITZERLAND.
4. To everybody’s surprise, all Plant & Machinery purchased were again paid for directly through Guffantti Nigeria Plc. Bank Accounts in Nigeria. What then happened to the $13Million US Dollars that went into a Private Account in Switzerland? This is the pertinent question the present Board of Directors is asking which some selfish group of people are trying to cover up by introducing various antics of destabilizing the Company at the expense of Nigerian Shareholders. It is however good to note that their present FRONT (Olusegun A. Alalade) has been picked by the Italians when other well-meaning Nigerians (including a Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN) would not do their biddings.
5. The COMPANY’S PROPERLY CONSTITUTED BOARD OF DIRECTORS and all other functionaries remain in office performing their respective functions.
6. The Company’s BANKS, the CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION and the NIGERIA POLICE FORCE have all been notified accordingly.
7. The Board of Directors and Management of Gufffanti (Nigeria) Plc. wish to assure the general public, especially its esteemed Clients- Institutional and Corporate, Trade Partners, Suppliers and all Nigerian Shareholders that the operations and activities of the Company remain on-course and on-going.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2003
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALPHA NOMINEES LIMITED” (See page 560 of the Record of Appeal)

He also tendered a letter dated 5/11/2003 written by one Mohsen “Haaui” addressed to the Appellant and another dated 18/11/2003 addressed to one “Segun” which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit “C” and “C1” respectively.

Exhibit “C” is reproduced as follows:-
SAMOHAD NIGERIA LIMITED
Manufactures of PLASTIC WARES
POSTAL ADDRESS: FACTORY:
P.O. BOX 1109 Plot 7A, Kudirat Abiola Way,
Apapa – Lagos Near Dunlop Bus-/Stop
Oregun-– Ikeja Lagos
Date:- …
15/11/2003
Dear Mr. Alalade,
Ali has just informed me that he saw certain publication in the newspaper and that you are involved in some serious trouble with some Italians. What is this all about and are we likely to be affected as your client. I will like to see you.
Bye and regards.
Yours faithfully,
SIGNED
MORSEN HAOUI
(See page 551 of the Record of Appeal)

Exhibit “C1” is reproduced as follows:-
HOMAN Engineering Company Limited
Civil Engineering, Building, Earthwork and Mechanical Eng.
Head office: Plot 273 Trans Amadi ind. Layout, P.O. Box 5073
Port Harcourt, Phone 084-233424-231386
Fax: 084-238033
E-mail: Homan.eng@phca.linkserve.com
18/11/2003
Dear Segun,
What is all these publications in the Tribune about? My Financial Controller drew my attention to it on my return from France.
Please talk to me ASAP.
Yours faithfully,
SIGNED
FOR: GHASSAN RIZK
(See page 552 of the Record of Appeal)

A perusal of Exhibit “C” and “C1” would reveal that Exhibit “C” written by “one MORSEN HAOUI merely referred to a “Certain Publication” in an unidentified “Newspaper” of which he was informed by one “Ali” talking of the Appellant being “involved in some serious trouble with some Italians.”

Exhibit “C1” is a letter written to one “Segun” asking about “all these Publications in the Tribune” and signed for one “GHASSAN RIZK.”
The question that comes to mind at this juncture are:-
(a) Which Newspaper are the two Exhibits referring to
(b) Which publication is being referred to. The two Exhibits i.e. “C” and “C1” are open to a lot of speculations.

I agree with the findings of the Learned Trial Judge that none of the two writers expressed any adverse opinion about the Claimant now Appellant. And the two Exhibits i.e. “C” and “C1” did not refer to Exhibits “B” at all.

The essence of publication in my view is not merely in writing or printing but to bring out or show the negative opinion formed by a third party based on what he has seen or read about the person allegedly defamed.
​The Appellant in this case has failed to prove that somebody else apart from himself saw Exhibits “B” and provoked negative feeling about him in the other person that saw it.
Publication is making known the words complained about to person or persons other than the person about whom it is written.
The Appellant in my view was unable to prove publication of Exhibits “B” at the trial Court because there is no independent evidence apart from that of the Claimant/Appellant which showed the effect of the alleged libelous publication on him. There is nothing to show that the alleged libelous publication has lowered the reputation of the Claimant/Appellant and brought him into odium and scorn.
See the following cases:-
– ONU VS. AGBESE (SUPRA).
– DR. ANTE VS. SANUSI (2002) FWLR PART 93 PAGE 1902 AT 1920 – 1921.
– NEPA VS. INAMET (SUPRA).
Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that the Appellant has failed to prove an essential ingredient of libel before the Trial Court.
Therefore, this issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.

This Appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court in SUIT NO: 1/45/2004 BETWEEN: OLUSEGUN ALALADE VERSUS AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS LTD delivered on 14th day of January 2016 is hereby affirmed.
Appeal Dismissed.

ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA. I am entirely in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion stated therein.

It is trite that for a claimant for libel like the Appellant herein to succeed, he must establish that he has been defamed. See: ANYAH v AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS (NIG.) LIMITED (1992) LPELR-511(SC). per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) at page 20, parse. C – D; and EBONG v UDOH (2014) LPELR-23447(CA), per Nweze, JCA (as he then was) at page 27, paras. E- F.
As to what the Plaintiff needs to prove in order to succeed, the Supreme Court, per Oputa, JSC had held in THE SKETCH PUBLISHING CO. LTD. & ANOR v AJAGBEMOKEFERI (1989) LPELR-3207(SC) at page 37, paras. A – F, that:
The tort of defamation arises because every person has a right to the protection of his good name, reputation and the estimation in which he stands in the society of his fellow citizens: Scott v. Sampson (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 491 at p. 503. Anybody who publishes anything injuring that good name, reputation or estimation commits the tort of libel (if written) and slander (if oral). The onus on the plaintiff in an action for libel is to prove that the defendant. (i) published in permanent form a Statement; (ii) that the statement referred to him; (iii) that the statement was defamatory of him.
The Appellant was therefore unable to establish publication of the alleged libelous statement before the trial Court, let alone establishing the adverse effect of the statement upon his reputation by third parties. His claim before the trial Court was bound to fail. The trial Court was therefore right when it dismissed the Appellant’s suit.

For the above reasons which are more elaborately stated in the lead judgment, I join in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal for lack of merit and in affirming the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 14th January, 2016.

ABDUL-AZEEZ WAZIRI, J.C.A.: I read in draft the leading judgment prepared and delivered by my learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada JCA, and to register the support I have in the reasoning from which the decision emanated, I shall make some few remarks.

​The Appellant’s suit germinating to this Appeal is founded on the tort of defamation. The Appellant’s grouse is that the Respondent maliciously published words concerning the Appellant/Claimant. Libel is a statement(s) in written form which causes a person to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt i.e. to be shunned or avoided and to be lowered in the estimation of right thinking people in the society. It is a defamatory statement expressed in fixed medium especially in writing, but also a picture, sign or electronic broadcast. See Black’s Law Dictionary Edition, GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD & ANOR VS. AJEH (2011) LPELR 1343 SC: ESENOWO VS. UKPONG (1999) 6 NWLR (PT 608) 611: SKETCH PUBLISHING CO. LTD VS. AJAGBEMOKEFERI (1989) 1 NWLR (PT 100) 678.

In order to succeed in an action for libel, the Claimant/Appellant must prove certain ingredients thus:-
(i) That there is the publication of the material complained of by the Defendant.
(ii) The publication was in writing.
(iii) That the publication of the material complained of refers to no other person but the Plaintiff conclusively.
(iv) That the words complained of was published to some person other than the person to whom it referred to.
(v) That the publication is defamatory of the Claimant.
(vi) Falsity or lack of the accuracy of the words complained of.
(vii) That there are no justifiable legal grounds for the publication of the words. See the following cases – SKYE BANK PLC & ANOR VS. AKINPELU (2010) 9 NWLR (PT 1198) 179, (2010) LPELR 3073 SC: AROMOLARAN VS. AGORO (2014) LPELR-24037 (SC).

By the avalanche of the evidence adduced before the lower Court, the Claimant/Appellant was unable to prove any evidence of publication of the defamatory words complained of.

In the final analysis, I am at one with the right conclusion by the Lower Court that the Claimant/Appellant did not establish the vital ingredient/element. For these and more exhaustive reasons advanced in the lead judgment, I too join in dismissing the unmeritorious appeal of the Appellant.

The judgment of the lower Court is accordingly affirmed. I abide by the consequential order made with regards to “Costs in the Cause”.

Appearances:

MR. CHRIS OGBOBE For Appellant(s)

MR. AKINJIDE SADIQ For Respondent(s)