DUMBO & ORS V. IDUGBOE
| Pages | 22-42 |
22
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1983] N.S.C.C.
DUMBO & ORS V. IDUGBOE
5
1.
MAURICE DUMBO
2.
RIVERS STATE
NEWSPAPER CORPORATION
APPELLANTS
10
3.
J.L. JOHNSON
V
CHIEF STEPHEN IDUGBOE
RESPONDENT
SUIT NO. SC 85/1981
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
15
SOWEMIMO,
J.S.C.
BELLO,
J.S.C.
IDIGBE,
J.S.C.
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
ANIAGOLU,
J.S.C.
20
4th February, 1983
Tort - Defamation - Libel and slander - Ordinary and natural meaning of words
complained of - Whether capable of being defamatory - Trial Judge sitting as
judge and jury - Appeal Courts competence to reverse decision that ordinary
25
and natural meaning of words complained of not libellous in law and in fact
- Quantum of damages for libel.
ISSUES:
1.
What is the proper test a court should apply in determining whether words are
30
defamatory.
2.
Whether an Appeal Court is competent in libel cases to constitute itself as judge
and jury and deal with an appeal as though it was a trial at first instance?
3.
What must a party do to establish a plea of justification?
4.
Whether the Court of Appeal is competent to entertain a contention to increase
35
damages on a Notice filed under Order 7 rule 13(1) of the Supreme Court Rules
1977 or whether the correct procedure is a Notice of Appeal by way of
cross-appeal.
FACTS:
The plaintiff sued the defendants (Co-directors) for a publication stating
sim-
40
pliciter
that by an extraordinary resolution of the company at its general meeting,
the plaintiff was "removed from office ...as a member of the Board of Direc-
tors....with immediate effect"
The plaintiff alleged that the ascribed imputation was that he was dismissed
from office for misconduct. The High Court held that the words published were
45
not capable of bearing defamatory meaning. The plaintiff appealed to the Federal
Court of Appeal which held in his favour. The appellants appealed to the Supreme
Court.
HELD:
1. In deciding whether words are capable of defamatory meaning, the court will
50
reject those meanings which can only emerge as the product of some strained,
forced or utterly unreasonable interpretation and constue the words according
do the fair and natural meaning which would be given them by reasonable
persons of ordinary intelligence. The proper test was whether, in the
DUMBO & ORS V. IDUGBOE
23
circumstances of publication, a reasonable person is likely to understand the
words in the defamatory sense, even though they could bear an innocent
interpretation. In this case the publication of the removal of the plaintiff from the
office of Director coming at a time when the alleged cleaning process embarked
5
on by the Military was and could not but impute defamatory meaning to the
publication complained of.
2.
The defence of fair comment was not open to the appellants as the words
complained of were not comments at all. The Plea of justification raised by the
appellant in his defence was never established. To establish a plea of
10
justification the defendant must prove that the defamatory imputation is true.
This was not discharged by mere production of the resolution containing the
offending words.
3.
Under order 7 rule 13(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, the Court of Appeal is
competent to entertain the contention to increase damages on a notice filed.
15
However, the quantum of damages awarded by the judge would not be
disturbed as the plaintiff has failed to show that its assessment was not based
on proper legal principles.
4.
In Nigeria, since the trial judge or court performs the functions of judge and
jury, the appeal court (Federal Court of Appeal) hearing an appeal from the
20
decision of a judge of the High Court, by virtue of the powers conferred upon
it by section 16 of the Federal Court of Appeal Act is competent to assume the
role of judge and jury in a matter and correct all errors of law and conclusions,
inferences and findings of fact.
25
[As to
Meaning of Words Used in Alleged Defamation,
see 28 HALSBURY'S
LAWS 4th Edition 22 paras. 43-45.]
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT.
1.
Phillip Ezekwe v. E.T. Otomewo & Ors.
(1957) W.R.N.L.R. 130.
30
2.
Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers
3.
Cook v.
Ward
(1830) 4 Moo & p.111.
4.
Morris v. Sandess Universe Products
5.
Morgan v. Odhams Press Ltd. & Anor.
6.
Beswick v. Smith
(108) Times L.R. 67.
35
7.
Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty
(1882) AC. 745.
8.
Jones v. Skelton
(1963), W.L.R. 1376.
9.
Turner v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Pictures
(1950) 1 A.E.R. 449.
10.
Lagos City Council v. Emmanuel Ajayi
(1970) 1 All N.L.R. 291.
11.
Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd.
(1944) A.C. 116 H.L.
40
12.Neville v. Fine Art & General Insurance Co.
(1897) A.C. 68 H.L.
13.Lockhart v. Harrison
H.L.
14.
Goldstein v. Foss and Another
6 R & C 157; E.R. K.B. 409.
15.Peters v. Bradlaugh
(1884) 4 T.L.R. 467.
16.Kerr v. Force
(1826) 3 Cranch C.C. 8 at 24.
45
17.
Truth (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Holloway
(1960) 1 W.L.R. 996 (PC).
18.
Wernher Bert v. Markham
(1901) 18 T.L.R. 143, 763.
19.Johns v. Gittings
(159) Cro. Eliz 239.
20.
Clarkson v. Lawson
(1829) 6 Bing 266; 3 Moo & P.
21.
Cooper v. Lawson
(1938) 8 A & E 746.
50
22.Sutherland v. Stopes
(1925) A.C. at 62, 63, 75.
23.
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v. Mamsine Knitting Factor
(1979) A.C. 91 at 105.
C.O. Scott-Emiakpor
for the Appellants.
To continue reading
Request your trial