Libel And Slander

• Pages: 635-653

LIBEL AND SLANDER

(1) AWARD OF DAMAGES

1901. Assessment of damages in libel cases.

“In the case of Williams v. Daily Times S.C. 21/1987; (1990) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 124)

the Supreme Court observed that the assessment of damages in a libel action is

usually subjective so that an award in an unrelated case cannot be a useful guide. -

Per Edozie, J.C.A. in A.C.B. Ltd. v. Apugo Suit No. CA/PH/6/91; (1995) 6 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 399) 65 at 88.

1902. Award of damages in libel cases.

(1) “The reasonable man who read the article ought to have been called to give his

opinion of the person allegedly libeled. No Court should rely on the plaintiff’s per-

sonal estimation of himself to award aggravated damages.”- Per Olatawura, J.C.A.

in Daily Times v. Emezuom Suit No. CA/E/253/85; (1990) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 132) 340

at 355.

(2) “The damages should be based on the evidence from the witnesses, his position

within the community, his feelings and the effect of the publication since the publica-

tion of the defamatory article and the conduct of the defendants.” - Per Olatawura,

J.C.A. in Daily Times v. Emezuom Suit No. CA/E/253/85; (1990) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

132) 340 at 355.

1903. Depreciation of currency on award of damages for libel.

“I am of the firm view that the learned trial Judge exercised his discretion judiciously.

Bearing in mind the depreciation of the value of Naira since the year 1984 when the

judgment was delivered to this date, I do not think that the award of N60,000 is

excessive. I therefore decline to disturb the award.” - Per Edozie, J.C.A. in Dou-

glas v. Peterside Suit No. CA/E/279/88; (1994) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 330) 37 at 52.

1904. Is there need to prove damages in libel cases?

“The law is firmly settled that every libel is of itself a wrong in regard to which the

law imputes general damages. If a plaintiff proves that a libel has been published of

him without legal justification, his cause of action is complete and he needs not prove

that he has suffered any resulting actual damage or injury to his reputation for such

damage is presumed by the law. See: Youssoupoff v. M.G.M. Pictures Ltd. (1934)

50 T.L.R. 581 at 584 and English and Scottish Co-operative Properties v. Odhams

(1940) 1 K.B. 440 at 455.” - Per Iguh, J.S.C. in C.R.S.N. Corp. v. Oni & Ors. Suit

No. S.C. 126/1992; (1995) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 371) 270 at 292.

635

Award of damages Paras. 1901-1904

Paras. 1905-1906 Vol. 15: LIBEL AND SLANDER 636

1905. Quantum of damages for libel.

“In the earlier case of in Re Felix Egware (1974) 6 S.C. 103, Coker, J.S.C., dealing

with the same issue of award of damage in libel cases, said at 108: “… such an

award must be adequate to repair the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation which was

damaged. The award must be such as would atone for the assault on the plaintiff’s

character and pride which were unjustifiably invaded; and it must reflect the reaction

of the law to the imprudent and illegal exercise in the course of which the libel was

unleashed by the defendant.” - Per Tobi, J.C.A. Complete Comm. Ltd. v. Onoh Suit

No. CA/E/175/96; (1998) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 549) 197 at 221.

1906. Relevant factors for assessment of damages for libel.

(1) “In assessing the quantum of damages in libel cases, the Court must, also take

into consideration the evidence in the case and the subject matter of the action and

the amount awarded must be sufficient to atone for the injury inflicted on the plaintiff’s

reputation. See: Uyo 1 v. Nigerian National Press Ltd. (1974) 6 S.C. 103 where

Coker, J.S.C. said at page 108: - “Whatever method of assessment is employed a

great part of the exercise of assessment must be arbitrary but the entire exercise

must at all stages have reference to the evidence in the case and the subject matter

of the action. Such an award must be such as would atone for the assault on the

plaintiff’s character and pride which were unjustifiably invaded; and it must reflect

the reaction of the law to the imprudent and illegal exercise in the course of which the

libel was unleashed by the defendant.” - Per Muhammed, J.C.A. in Mayange v.

Punch (Nig.) Ltd. Suit No. CA/J/78/90; (1994) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 358) 570 at 586.

(2) “It is the law and practice that every case of libel is considered on its own circum-

stances and on its own merit. The application of the factors is not therefore math-

ematical. The law is, that the exercise of awarding damages in libel must take into

consideration the evidence in the case and the subject matter of the action; and the

amount awarded must be adequate to repair the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.

See: Uyo 1 v. Nigeria National Press Ltd. (1974) 6 S.C. 103 at 108.” - Per Orah,

J.C.A. in Mayange v. Punch (Nig.) Ltd. Suit No. CA/J/78/90; (1994) 7 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 358) 570 at 584.

(3) “The instant case, in which the respondent flagrantly, callously and with reckless

abandon published and imputed a criminal offence of armed robbery on the appellant

throughout the country, and in the course of his business; whereby it is imputed that;

he uses his hotel as a protective cover and operational base for men of the under-

world is not certainly the same case where dishonesty is imputed on Mr. Lardner or

Chief Rotimi Williams S.A.N., no matter how eminently undoubtedly they may have

been. Mr. Lardner was not at the time an S.A.N. The imputation of armed robbery

on the appellant carries a capital punishment, which extinguishes life. In my view, the

said publication, which has been serialised in this judgment, is extremely flagrant,

reckless, odious and irresponsible. It has no parallel. It calls for the greatest repug-

nance, which the law ascribes to such odium: See Williams v. Daily Times (1990) 1