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!

THE DEFENCE OF QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

defamation

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?

TRUTH OF A DEFAMATORY STATEMENT IS JUSTIFICATION

One of the defences available to a defendant in an action for libel is that of justification. It is therefore a complete defence to an action for libel or slander that the defamatory imputation is true. 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 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 and as such the allegation in a defence that the words complained are true is therefore called a plea of justification. A defence of justification is therefore a complete bar to any relief sought by a party who complains of defamation. It is appropriately described in the Latin maxim: damnum absque injuria.” Until it is clearly established that an alleged libel is untrue, it will not be clear that any right at all has been infringed: See Registered Trustees of Amore v. Awoniyi (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 178) 245 at 257.

— Akintan, JSC. Iloabachie v Iloabachie (2005) – SC.137/2000

Was this dictum helpful?

A COMPANY CAN SUE FOR DEFAMATION

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?

IMPUTATION OF CORRUPTION ON A MAN IN OFFICE IS DEFAMATORY

It is settled law that it is defamatory to impute to a man in any office, whether public or private, any corrupt, dishonest or fraudulent conduct or other misconduct or inefficiency in it or unfitness or want of ability to discharge his duties. See the case of CITIBANK NIGERIA LIMITED v. IKEDIASHIO (2014) 7 CLRN (CA).

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

Was this dictum helpful?

CHARACTER IS PUT IN ISSUE IN A TORT OF DEFAMATION SUIT

The tort of defamation, whether libel or slander, relates essentially to damages to the character of the person. In other words a plaintiff who institutes an action for libel has invariably put his character in issue. He is understood to be telling the whole world what a good person he is, and stating that some one is trying to destroy his enviable good name. He puts his reputation at stake depending of course on what the defamation is all about. In the course of consideration of the case but particularly as in this case where the appellant has shown through his pleadings what a person of great repute and of unblemished character he is, he has literally thrown his hat on the ring, caution to the wind, and dares the defamer to disprove his good and admirable character. Where in the process of the proceedings, facts elicited in the evidence portray him as an inveterate liar incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood he might have unwittingly succeeded by his inconsistent statements and falsehoods destroyed his character which he has held out to the world to be clean. In such a case he cannot complain if the court finds out that he is a chronic, or penitus insitus liar.

— Pats-Acholonu, JSC. Iloabachie v Iloabachie (2005) – SC.137/2000

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT NEED BE PROVED TO SUCCEED IN DEFAMATION

It is trite that for a claimant to succeed in an action for defamation, he needs to prove the following; (a) That the words are defamatory which exposes him to hatred, ridicule, contempt in the estimation of right thinking members of the society and has the tendency to injure his reputation, profession or trade. That the false words referred to him (the Plaintiff) and are to discredit him. (b) (c) That the words were published (to at least one person other than the plaintiff). It is the position of the law in the case of STEPHEN EMMANUEL v. CHRISTIANA FELIX & ORS (2022) LPELR-57960 (CA) that; “It is indeed the correct position of law that at least one witness must be called who actually perceived the defamatory words by reading the written words or by hearing in its oral form.” See also the case of OKECHUKWU v. UBA PLC & ANOR (2017) LPELR-43100 (CA).

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

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.