THE SUN PUBLISHING LIMITED & ORS v. HON. ABUBAKAR SALEH DUMBA
(2019)LCN/12841(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 8th day of March, 2019
CA/J/228/2017
RATIO
TORT LAW: DEFAMATION
“We are urged to resolve in favour of the respondent. The Black’s Law Dictionary Eighth Edition defined defamation thus: ‘The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. A false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation.’ Therefore the meaning of defamatory words either libel or slander must be based on untruth. In establishing a claim of defamation, specifically libel which is in a permanent form as in the present case by newspaper, the law requires the plaintiff to plead and reproduce the alleged libelous words/statement(s) in the pleadings, and show proof/evidence of publication of the libelous words/statement(s), in a manner that the plea/defence of justification or privilege cannot avail the defendant. See Independent Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Idiong (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 647) 677; Guardian Newspaper Ltd. Vs. Ajeh (2011)10 NWLR (Pt. 1256) 574; Egbe Vs. Adefarasin (No. I) (1987)1 NWLR (Pt. 47) and Access bank Plc. Vs. Muhammad (2014)6 NWLR (Pt. 404) 613 at 616. For a statement to be defamatory, the imputation must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. Even if the words published damaged a person in the eyes of section of society or community, they are not defamatory unless they amount to a disparagement of the reputation in the eyes of right thinking people generally.” PER TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A.
TORT LAW: LIBEL
“Libel is a statement reduced into writing, by one about the other, which statement has been published to a third party and has the effect or tendency of lowering the addressee in the eyes of right thinking members of the society generally. Particularly, the statement causes its victim to be regarded with ill- feelings, fear, ridicule or disdain – The Sketch Publishing Co. Ltd Vs Alhaji Ajagbemokeferi (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt 100) 678 and NITEL vs Tugbiyele (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 912) 334. To sustain an action for libel, a claimant must prove
(i) that the publication was in writing,
(ii) that the publication was false,
(iii) that the false publication was made to a person apart from the claimant and the defendant,
(iv) that the publication referred to the claimant and was defamatory of the claimant, and
(v) that the publication was made by the defendant.
See Alawiye Vs Ogunsanya (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt 864) 486, Iloabachie Vs Iloabachie (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt 934) 695.” PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU J.C.A.
JUSTICES
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TANI YUSUF HASSAN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. THE SUN PUBLISHING LTD.
2. PAUL ORUDE
3. ONUOHA EKE Appellant(s)
AND
HON. ABUBAKAR SALEH DUMBA Respondent(s)
TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Bauchi State, delivered on the 8th day of May, 2017 in Suit No.BA/52/2014 by Honourable Justice K.N. Hamidu.
The facts in brief are that, sometime in September, 2013, the son of the respondent while driving a car had an accident with another who was riding on a motor cycle. The accident caused the death of the motorcyclist, as a result of which the son of the respondent was charged before a Chief Magistrate Court, Bauchi for dangerous driving. While the trial was going on at the Chief Magistrate Court, the family of the deceased instituted an action before the Sharia Court, Bauchi seeking for payment of Diyyah (compensation) in Islam.
On the 1st of January, 2014, the 1st respondent/appellant published in its Daily Newspaper that the respondent has been dragged to Court for a claim of N35 Million against him as compensation.
Aggrieved with the publication, the respondent claimed that the publication amount to defamation of his person. Hence the institution of the action by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendants/appellants.
The plaintiff/respondent?s claims against the defendants/appellants before the lower Court are as follows:
a. A declaration that the publication contained at page 14 in the Daily Sun Newspaper of 1st January, 2014 amount to defamation on the person of the plaintiff
b. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to public apology by all the Defendants.
c. An order for public apology by all the defendants in favour of the plaintiff to be published in the 1st defendant’s newspaper for one week.
d. One Hundred Million Naira (N100,000.000.00) being damages against the defendants for defamation.
The defendants/appellants filed a joint Amended Statement of defence to the plaintiff/respondent’s claim. The respondent filed a reply to the defendants/appellants statement of defence.
At the end of trial, judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent against the defendants/appellants.
The appellants who are not satisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, appealed to this Court on an Amended Notice of Appeal dated 20th November, 2017, filed on 24th day of November, 2017 and deemed properly filed on the 16th of April, 2018, containing four grounds of appeal with their particulars and reliefs sought.
The appellants’ brief dated 20th November, 2017, was filed on the 24th day of November, 2017 and deemed properly filed on 16th April, 2018. The appellants’ reply brief was dated 3rd July, 2018 and filed on 13th day of July, 2018 but deemed properly filed on 6th February, 2019. Learned counsel for the appellants adopted the briefs and urged us to allow the appeal.
The respondent’s brief was dated 14th day of May, 2018 and filed on the 15th of May, 2018. Learned counsel for the respondent adopted the brief and urged us to dismiss the appeal. In the appellant’s brief, the two issues distilled for determination of the appeal read:
1. Whether the respondent established a case of defamation by Libel against the appellant at the lower Court, having regards to the requirement of the law to prove same. (Grds 1,2 and 3)
2. Whether the award of the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) was justifiable taking into account the entire circumstances of the case (Grd 4).?
The issues formulated by the appellants were adopted by the respondent. I shall be guided by the appellants? issues in resolving this appeal.
ISSUE ONE
Whether the respondent established a case of defamation by libel against the appellant at the lower Court, having regards to the requirement of the law to prove same.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiff in a libel case must satisfy five basic ingredients in proof of his case as enumerated in the case of Inland Bank (Nig) Plc. Vs. F. & S CO. Ltd. (2010)15 NWLR (Pt. 2016)395 at 396 as follows:
(a) There was a publication in writing
(b) The publication was false
(c) That the publication is defamatory of the plaintiff
(d) That the defamatory statement was published to a third person
(e) That it was the defendant who published the defamatory words.
Counsel argued that the respondent failed to satisfy these requirements. That from the statement of claim, what was pleaded was the caption of the Newspaper publication without the entire publication to aid the Court in reaching a conclusion about the actual meaning of the words complained of.
The Court was referred to Okafor Vs. Ikeanyi & Ors. (1979) 1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 678 and Order 24 Rule 4(1) of the Bauchi State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules in force, and submitted that the respondent failed to comply by not setting out the full of the publication or part of same complained of, other than the caption. That the words contained in the caption of the newspaper publication are not defamatory in their ordinary and natural meaning as the caption titled ‘Family drags Bauchi Deputy Speaker to Court, demands N35 Million compensation’ neither referred to any criminal proceedings nor did it refer to the respondent as an accused person.
It is argued for the appellants that if the caption was read together with the main publication, it would become clear that the facts contained therein were factual description of the law suit that was instituted against the son of the respondent in the Sharia Court for causing the death of a member of the Huseini Ibrahim family.
It is submitted that since the words complained of were not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, the respondent has a duty to show that the words contained in the caption of the publication are defamatory or they convey a defamatory imputation.
Relying on the case of Nsirim Vs. Nsirim (1990)3 NWLR (Pt. 138) 285 at 289, it is submitted that, in defamation or libel cases, what is important, is the reaction of the third party to the publication complained of. That it is not what the plaintiff thinks about himself, but what a third party thinks of the plaintiff as regards his reputation.
That the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who the respondent called to support his case, the opinion held of the respondent by the witnesses was never negative by the publication and reference by PW1 as to what others said is hearsay and inadmissible under Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act. Counsel referred to the case of Buhari Vs. Obsanjo (2005)13 NWLR (Pt. 941)1 at 209.
It is finally submitted on this issue that the respondent was unable to show through legally admissible evidence that his reputation was lowered in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally or exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule or cause other persons to shun or avoid him or discredit him in office, trade or profession or injure his financial credit as prescribed in the case of Inland Bank (Nig.) Plc. Vs. F. & S CO. Ltd. (supra). The Court was referred to Exhibit ?A? to take a look at the words complained of, by the respondent on page 14 of the Daily Sun Newspaper of 1st January, 2014, that there is nothing in the caption that will make a reasonable man think of the respondent as a criminal to expose him to hatred and ridicule as the respondent wants the Court to believe. The Court was referred to Okolo Vs. Midwest Newspaper Corp. (1977)1 SC 33 and Ologe Vs. New Africa Holdings Ltd. (2013) 3-4 SC (Pt. I), that the trial Court ended up considering the meaning of each word contained in the caption complained of, and taken out the con, thereby missing the general impression conveyed by the entire publication which is contrary to the principle in Ologe Vs. New Africa Holdings Ltd. (supra). That the words in publication must be construed as a whole, not a single word as canvassed.
We are urged to resolve in favour of the appellants.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted in response that in the case of Guardian Newspaper Ltd. Vs. Ajeh (2011) 46 NSCQR 254, the Court held that for a plaintiff to succeed in an action for libel he must publish the entire article or part of it which he claims is injurious to him. That the respondent in this suit reproduced part of the publication that actually touches on his reputation which is at paragraph 14 of the statement of claim at page 11 of the record. That the caption of a publication is enough to establish a claim of libel. That in the instant case, the caption was repeated in the main body of the said publication and it is not for the appellants to say that the respondent has refused to reproduce the entire article complained of, as both the caption and main body of the publication are part and parcel of each other and cannot be read disjointly.
Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the word ‘accused’ contained in the said publication must have referred to the respondent, because the appellants never reported that it was the respondent?s son that was taken to Court. That the publication which says ‘Family drags Bauchi Deputy Speaker to Court, demands N35 Million compensation’ is defamatory against the respondent and that this is so because ‘Diyya’ in Islam which is a compensation means someone must have been convicted of a criminal offence by the Court before an action for compensation can be initiated against him. Counsel referred to Section 59 of the Sharia Penal Code on the definition of ‘Diyya’. Also referred is Section 96 and 96 (i) of the Sharia Penal Code on punishment of offenders in relation to payment of ‘Diyya’ imposed on an individual adjudged guilty of causing bodily harm or death which is seen as blood money.
Submitting further, that the said publication was published to people other than the respondent, and people from the respondent’s community read the publication, and the story was published both in hard copies and on the net in which it was read all over the world. Also that the words published are false and lack accuracy because as at the time the said publication was made, the respondent’s son is not the Deputy Speaker of Bauchi State and it was not the respondent that was taken to court for the demand of N35 Million compensation in form of ‘Diyya’.
That the 2nd appellant knew of these facts but went ahead and portrayed the respondent as the one facing trial before the Upper Sharia Court. The evidence of DW1 under cross-examination at page 81 of the record was referred to.
It is argued on behalf of the respondent that in establishing his claim, he supplied telephone numbers through which unknown people called and insulted him and the appellants did not contradict this evidence before the trial Court which is deemed admitted. He relied on Bwarami Vs. Mariami (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 303) 379 at 388 and Ogunyade Vs. Osunkeye (2007)15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 218.
It is contended on behalf of the respondent that by the nature of the action before the Upper Sharia Court in which compensation is being demanded, nobody is left in doubt that anybody who is linked to such suit means his image has been called to question and being portrayed as that of a criminal who must have been convicted somewhere, which means the respondent was not out of place when he maintained at page 80 of the record that his main concern is because the said publication has portrayed him as a criminal.
That since the respondent was not the one dragged to Court and the respondent?s son was not the Deputy Speaker of Bauchi State House of Assembly as at the time the suit was instituted by the family of Hussein Ibrahim, the sole aim behind the said publication was nothing but to ridicule the respondent thereby bringing his reputation down before the right thinking members of his society.
Learned Counsel for the respondent also referred to the evidence of the respondent when he testified that as a result of the publication, people called him all sorts of bad names and being a politician the publication affected his re-election to the House of Assembly because of the way the ordinary people in the society regarded him after they have come across the publication on the test of right thinking persons. The Court was referred to Ologe Vs. New Africa Holdings Ltd. (supra). That testimonies of respondent?s witnesses are direct and positive and were not contradicted during cross-examination. That contrary to the submission of the appellants? counsel PW1 said in his presence he heard negative comments being altered on the person of the respondent and also the testimony of PW2.
That his evidence did not offend Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act.
It is also submitted that the evidence of the respondent that he received phone calls and was insulted to the extent of threatening him with a recall from the seat he occupied in Bauchi State House of Assembly was never discredited in anyway by the appellants.
Referring to the evidence of DW1 under cross-examination, it is submitted that the witness admitted that the Deputy Speaker of Bauchi State House of Assembly was never dragged to Court by any family seeking compensation.
It is finally submitted that the case of Inland Bank (Nig) Plc. Vs. F. & S CO. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the appellants cannot help their case because all the ingredients to be established by a plaintiff in an action for defamation as enumerated by the Court are in favour of the respondent, having successfully established his claim of defamation.
We are urged to resolve in favour of the respondent.
The Black’s Law Dictionary Eighth Edition defined defamation thus:
‘The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. A false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation.’
Therefore the meaning of defamatory words either libel or slander must be based on untruth. In establishing a claim of defamation, specifically libel which is in a permanent form as in the present case by newspaper, the law requires the plaintiff to plead and reproduce the alleged libelous words/statement(s) in the pleadings, and show proof/evidence of publication of the libelous words/statement(s), in a manner that the plea/defence of justification or privilege cannot avail the defendant. See Independent Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Idiong (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 647) 677; Guardian Newspaper Ltd. Vs. Ajeh (2011)10 NWLR (Pt. 1256) 574; Egbe Vs. Adefarasin (No. I) (1987)1 NWLR (Pt. 47) and Access bank Plc. Vs. Muhammad (2014)6 NWLR (Pt. 404) 613 at 616.
For a statement to be defamatory, the imputation must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. Even if the words published damaged a person in the eyes of section of society or community, they are not defamatory unless they amount to a disparagement of the reputation in the eyes of right thinking people generally.
There must be proof that the statement had the effect of lowering him in the estimation of right thinking members of the society or for him to be shunned by them.
The respondent in my view has not discharged the burden on him. I shall now bring to the fore the statement which the respondent said were made by the appellants which defamed him. In Exhibit ‘A’ the Daily Sun Newspaper of 1st January, 2014 at page 14, the respondent pleaded in paragraph 14 of his statement of claim the statement made by the appellants thus:
Family drags Bauchi Deputy Speaker to Court, demands N35 Million compensation.
In a libel case, the full of the publication complained of must be set forth verbatim in the pleadings. This envisages that the full or the full sentence containing the offensive words must be pleaded. See Okafor Vs. Ikeanyi (1979) 3-4 SC 99. The defamatory words complained in this case are:
‘Family drags Bauchi Deputy Speaker to Court, demands N35 Million compensation.’
These words are abstract and do not provide the Court with adequate background to examine the full con of the sentence.
What the law requires is that the full of the publication must be set forth verbatim in the pleadings. This envisages that the full or the full sentence containing the offensive words must be pleaded. The caption as pleaded by the respondent is not enough, what is required in Exhibit ‘A’ at page 14 is for the respondent to plead the complete portion in the publication containing the full sentence complained of, and stating its effect or meaning of the words. Thus the respondent has not proved the defamatory statement as required by law.
We are guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sketch Publishing Company Ltd Vs. Alhaji Azeez Ajagbemokeferi (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 100) 678 and N.T.A. Vs. Ebenezer Babatope (1996) 4 NWLR (pt. 440) 75 at 88 to allow this appeal.
The respondent gave evidence stating his opinion on the publication and called witnesses to establish it, but that fall short of the burden placed on the respondent, having failed to plead paragraph of the publication complained of. Issue one is resolved in favour of the appellants and against the respondent.
ISSUE TWO
Whether the award of the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) was justifiable taking into account the entire circumstances of the case.
Having resolved issue one in favour of the appellant, issue two becomes unnecessary, and it struck out. The appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The judgment of the Bauchi State High Court in suit No. BA/52/2014 is hereby set aside.
Parties to bear their costs.
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Tani Yusuf Hassan, JCA. His Lordship has ably considered and resolved the issues in contention in this appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide by the conclusion reached therein.
The Respondent predicated his action in the lower Court on defamation. Now, defamation, generally, is any imputation which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking men or cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business – Benue Printing and Publishing Corporation Vs Alhaji Gwagwada (1989) 4 N WLR (Pt 116) 439 and Okolie Vs Marinho (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt 1002) 316. The genre of defamation in issue in this case is libel. Libel is a statement reduced into writing, by one about the other, which statement has been published to a third party and has the effect or tendency of lowering the addressee in the eyes of right thinking members of the society generally. Particularly, the statement causes its victim to be regarded with ill- feelings, fear, ridicule or disdain – The Sketch Publishing Co. Ltd Vs Alhaji Ajagbemokeferi (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt 100) 678 and NITEL vs Tugbiyele (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 912) 334. To sustain an action for libel, a claimant must prove
(i) that the publication was in writing,
(ii) that the publication was false,
(iii) that the false publication was made to a person apart from the claimant and the defendant,
(iv) that the publication referred to the claimant and was defamatory of the claimant, and
(v) that the publication was made by the defendant.
See Alawiye Vs Ogunsanya (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt 864) 486, Iloabachie Vs Iloabachie (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt 934) 695, Asheik vs Media Trust Nigeria Ltd (2010) 15 N WLR (Pt 1215) 114 and Inland Bank (Nig) Plc Vs Fishing & Shrimping Co Ltd (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 395.
The nemesis of the case of the Respondent in the lower Court was inadequate pleading of the defamatory words complained of. It is settled law that in a case of defamation of the libel genre, the full of the alleged words complained of as being defamatory to him must be set out verbatim in the pleadings – Okafor Vs Ikeanyi (1979) 3-4 SC 99, Ejikeme vs Nwosu (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt 754) 356, Fayose vs Independent Communications Network (2012) LPELR 9833(CA). In a case of libel, pleadings are of tremendous importance and so a plaintiff who claims that an article was libelous of him must reproduce the whole article verbatim or the passage he complains of in his pleadings; no matter how long the article is, it must be reproduced – Alawiye Vs Ogunsanya (2004) 4 N WLR (Pt 864) 486, Olaniyi Vs Elero (2006) 5237(CA), Onyenwe vs Anaejionu (2014) LPELR 22495(CA). Where a plaintiff fails to plead the alleged specific defamatory words, all the evidence led on the un-pleaded words will go to issue – Olaniyi Vs Elero supra.
What these translate to is that in considering whether the alleged article complained of is defamatory, a trial Court cannot go beyond the words of the article pleaded verbatim on the pleadings by a plaintiff. The trial Court cannot consider the un-pleaded portions of the article and evidence led by witnesses on the un-pleaded portion of the article go to no issue. In the instant case, the case of the Respondent in the trial Court was that the Appellants published an article or news item which was defamatory of him. However, in his pleadings, he pleaded only the caption of the publication, “Family drags Bauchi Deputy Speaker to Court, demands N35 Million compensation”, and did not plead the body of the publication or any portion of it. Thus, the task before the lower Court was to determine whether these words as pleaded were defamatory of the Respondent, and not whether the entire publication was defamatory of the Respondent.
The tort of defamation has to do with injury to the reputation of a person resulting from words written against him. Thus, words will be said to be defamatory where they have the effect of (i) lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or (ii) exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, (iii) causing other persons to shun or avoid him; or (iv) discrediting him in his office, trade or profession; or (v) injuring his financial credit – Olaniyi Vs Elero (2007) 34 WRN 32. In The Registered Trustees of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC (Nigeria) Vs Awoniyi (1994) 7 N WLR (Pt 355) 154, the Supreme Court stated that “words are not defamatory, however, much they may damage a man in the eyes of a section of the community, unless they amount to disparagement of his reputation in the eyes of right thinking men generally. To write or say of a man something that will disparage him in the eyes of a particular section of the community but will not affect his reputation in the eyes of the average right-thinking man is not actionable within the law of defamation.”
The question to ask therefore is whether the words as pleaded by the Respondent, “Family drags Bauchi Deputy Speaker to Court, demands N35 Million compensation”, disparaged his reputation amongst the right-thinking members of the community.
It is an established principle of law of defamation that the first step in the determination of the question whether a statement is defamatory or not is to consider what meaning the words would convey to the ordinary person – Agbanelo Vs Unity Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2000) 7 N WLR (Pt 666) 534. In determining whether the words pleaded are capable of carrying a defamatory meaning, the Court will reject the meaning which can only emerge as a product of some strained or forced or utterly unreasonable interpretation. In the Sketch Publishing Company Ltd Vs Ajagbemokeferi the Supreme Court stated:
“The test of reasonableness guides and directs the Court in its function in deciding whether it is open to a jury in a particular case to hold that reasonable persons would understand the words complained of in a defamatory sense. In determining whether the words are capable of a defamatory meaning, the Judge will construe the words according to the fair and natural meaning which will be given them by reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence and will not consider what persons setting themselves to work to deduce some unusual meaning might succeed to extract from them. The test according to Lord Selborne is whether, under the circumstances in which the words were published, reasonable men to whom the publication was made would be likely to understand them in a libelous sense.”
Applying these tests to the words as pleaded by the Respondent, “Family drags Bauchi Deputy Speaker to Court, demands N35 Million compensation”, it cannot be said, with more, ‘that the words are defamatory of the Respondent. No right-thinking or reasonable person of ordinary intelligence will understand them to be. They may make the reader curious as to what was going on with the Respondent, but it will be a stretch to far, to say that they disparaged his reputation amongst the right-thinking members of the community. All the witnesses called by the Respondent, including himself, based their statements that the words were defamatory, and on which the lower Court relied, on both the caption and the contents of the publication, and not just on the words of the caption alone, as they should have done. The finding of the lower Court that the Respondent made a credible case of defamation was thus wrongful.
It is for these reasons and fuller exposition of the law in the lead judgment that I too agree that there is merit in this appeal. I hereby allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Bauchi State in Suit No BA/52/2014 delivered by Honorable Justice K. N. Hamidu on the 8th of May, 2017. I abide by the order on costs in the lead judgment.
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading the draft of the leading judgment just delivered by my Lord, TANI YUSUF HASSAN, JCA.
I entirely agree with the resolution of issue one in favour of the Appellant and the order striking out issue two and the conclusion that this Appeal succeed and allowed.
I also allow the Appeal and abide by the consequential Orders in the leading judgment.
Appearances:
T. A. Lemkat, holding the brief of Dr. E. West-IdahosaFor Appellant(s)
I. B. BuziFor Respondent(s)
