STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

A COMPANY CAN SUE FOR DEFAMATION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The dismal effect of defamation/injurious falsehood on a persona ficta, like the first respondent, was graphically captured in Oduntan vs. General Oil Ltd. (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 387) 1 at 14 wherein the Apex Court declared: A company can sue for defamation. It has reputation and goodwill, which can be protected. An injury to its reputation can lead to loss of its goodwill. The Courts will, in appropriate cases, protect the reputation and goodwill of a company by award of damages and injunction. While it is true that a company, being an artificial person, is incapable of having natural grief and distress, this does not mean the same thing as its reputation in the way of its trade and business. See, also, C.S.S. & D.F, Ltd vs. Schlumberger (Nig,) Ltd (Supra).

— O.F. Ogbuinya JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. Longterm Global Cap. Ltd. & Ors. (September 20 2021, ca/l/1093/2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

defamation

DEFENSE OF ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE TO DEFAMATION

Nwaenang v. Ndarake & Ors. (2013) LPELR – 20720 (CA): “I should state that the law on defamation or libel has recognized situations which would constitute a complete defence to an action or defamation or libel. For instance, there are occasions on which the law regards the freedom of speech as essential and provides a defence of absolute privilege which can never be defeated no matter how untrue the words or statement may be. Such occasions includes when the words or statement were said or made in parliament….words or statements said or made in the course of judicial proceedings by judges, counsel, witnesses and other officials or persons which relates to the proceeding…”

Was this dictum helpful?

THE DEFENCE OF QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE

The defence of qualified privilege is a defence to an untrue publication. It can only be claimed however when the occasion of the publication is shown to be privileged. An occasion is privileged when the person who makes the documentation has a moral duty to make to the person to whom he does make it and the person who receives it has an interest in hearing it. Both these conditions must exist in order for the occasion may be privileged. See the case of MAINSTREET BANK LIMITED & ANOR v. DOMINIC BINNA (2016) LPELR-48351 (SC).PUNCH (NIG) LTD V OVBEREDJO (2018)LPELR-44540(CA) The defence of qualified privilege will not avail a defendant if there is evidence of actual or express malice. If the action of the defendant is actuated by malice. See the cases of UKO v. MBABA (2001) 4 NWLR (PT 704) 460 CA; CHIEF S. B. BAKARE & ANOR v. ALHAJI ADO IBRAHIM (1973) 6 SC 147 @ 152-153.

— A.O. Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA. Gbemre v Gbemre (2023) – CA/AS/114/2020

Was this dictum helpful?

EFFECTS OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS TO BE PROVED

Similarly, the tort of defamation has to do with injury to the reputation of a person resulting from words written or spoken by others against him. A defamatory statement has the following effects: (a) To lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally; or (b) To expose him to hatred; contempt or ridicule; or (c) To cause other persons to shun or avoid him; or (d) To discredit him in his office, trade or profession; or (e) To injure his financial credit. Thus, to succeed in an action for libel, the plaintiff, must establish the aforementioned as the effects of the defamatory publication of him. See Olaniyi v. Elero (Supra) at 983 Paras A-C. … Generally, the onus is on the plaintiff to show that the published words complained of are defamatory or that they convey a defamatory imputation. However, where the words complained of are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, the plaintiff has no legal duty to lead any evidence to show additional defamatory meaning understood by persons possessing some particular facts.

— S.D. West, JCA. Fayose v ICN (2012) – CA/AE/58/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

JUSTIFICATION IS A DEFENCE TO DEFAMATION

Defamation however, is not without a defence. Justification is a complete and a veritable defence to an action for libel or slander, that the defamatory imputation is true. Simply put, the truth of the imputation is an answer to the action because the law presumes that the plaintiff has no right to a character free from that imputation, and If he has no right to it, he cannot in justice recover damages for the loss of it. He is not entitled to benefit from the loss of a reputation he is not entitled to. See Iloabachie v. Iloabachie (Supra) at 517 paras A-D; Amorc v. Awoniyi (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 178), 245.

— S.D. West, JCA. Fayose v ICN (2012) – CA/AE/58/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

ACTUAL DEFAMATORY WORDS MUST BE STATED IN THE PLEADINGS

More so, it is of necessity in an action for defamation either libel or slander, that the actual words complained of and not merely their substance must be set out verbatim in the statement of claim. It is on the perusal of the actual words complained of as pleaded that the court will determine whether or not the words convey defamatory meaning. Failure to plead such actual words is fatal to the plaintiff’s case. See. Olaifa v. Aina (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt286) 192; Okafor v. Ikeanyi (1979) 1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 678; Olaniyi v. Elero (2008) All FWLR (Pt.411) 975 at 986 Paras C-E.

— S.D. West, JCA. Fayose v ICN (2012) – CA/AE/58/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

DEFAMATION VIS-A-VIS INJURIOUS FALSEHOODS

Defamation has been judicially, defined to embrace imputations which tend to lower a person’s dignity in the estimation of the right thinking members of the society and expose him, the person so disparaged, to hatred opprobrium odium, contempt or ridicule, see Oruwari v. Osler (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 535. The action is specifically anchored on injurious/malicious falsehood which signifies. “A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another’s character, property, product or business” It denotes “The common-law tort of belittling someone’s business, goods or services with remarks that are false or misleading: but not necessarily defamatory” see – Bryan A- Garner et al (eds.) Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th edition (West Publishing Co., US.A., 2014) pages 570 and 1721 respectfully. It bears the other names: – trade libel, slander of goods/title. It is an economic tort that attacks proprietary interest of citizens.

— O.F. Ogbuinya JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. Longterm Global Cap. Ltd. & Ors. (September 20 2021, ca/l/1093/2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.