ISERAMENYA v. OFODION
CITATION: (2020) LPELR-52236(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
In the Benin Judicial Division
Holden at Benin
ON MONDAY, 14TH DECEMBER, 2020
Suit No: CA/B/135/2017
Before Their Lordships:
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN
Justice, Court of Appeal
BIOBELE ABRAHAM
GEORGEWILL
Justice, Court of Appeal
GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE Justice, Court of Appeal
Between
BLESSING ISERAMENYA
– Appellant(s)
And
SATURDAY MORFI OFODION
Respondent(s)
FACT
LEADING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
In January 10,2014, the respondent who was the defendant at the Edo State High Court uttered some defamatory words against the appellant (the Claimant at the lower Court) which ran thus; “Blood monioeigho nu bhonubhenebudaluhenye. Oriasosoribhi family no sebha no asaborlubhenanything” – meaning the Claimant is using blood money and there is nothing the Claimant can do to the Defendant and there is nobody in the Claimant’s family that can do the Defendant anything. In pidgin English, the Defendant said “u no no say everibodi no say di moni you de use is blood moni, if no bodi don tell you before I don tell you na, you can’t do mi anything”. The slander adversely affected the appellant’s businesses as the appellant is a business woman carrying on the business of wholesale and retail of textiles of different types and also owes different stores where the appellant does her business of sales and supply of various textile materials. The appellant contended that customers shunned her businesses. Hence, the appellant commenced an action at the lower court via a writ of summons seeking the sum of N20,000.000.00 only as general/aggravated damages, a written apology and a sworn declaration of retraction of the defamatory words within three days of the delivery of this judgment and that the defendant should also be made to ring a bell and announce the retraction of the defamatory words in Uhiele and Uwenlenobo all in Ekpoma within 3days of the delivery of this Judgment.
At the end of the trial, the lower court dismissed the appellant’s claims.
The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court filed this appeal. The respondent, though served with hearing notice did not participate at the hearing of the appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal on the lone issue as follows:
Whether the court below was right when it held that the Appellant did not prove her case to entitle her to judgment on her claims against the Respondent and thereby dismissing her claims against the Respondent.
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
The Appellant’s counsel submitted that on the unchallenged evidence of the Appellant and her witnesses, it was proved contrary to the perverse findings of the Court below that the Appellant was disparaged by way of her trade by the slanderous words uttered by the Respondent against her. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and to set aside the perverse finding of the Court below to the contrary. Counsel relied on Fraser on Libel and Slander 7th Edition 1936, @ p.3 and Ballantine’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, @ p. 321.
Counsel urged the Court to hold that the words alleged and proved fell within one of the four heads listed to constitute slander actionable per se, having discredited her in her trade or profession since the Court below had rightly held that the words spoken were defamatory of the Appellant.
Learned counsel further submitted that in law, an action in defamation lies on proof of loss of reputation and not mere proof of loss of money or business interest. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Appellant having been disparaged by the slander by way of her business was in law entitled to recover damages to compensate her for the injury to her reputation and her trading business as a result of the slander by the Respondent. Counsel relied on Adeosun V. Afolabi (2004) All FWLR (Pt.227) 590 @ pp.603–604.
Counsel argued that the Court below was wrong when it held that the Appellant and her witnesses were unable to link the slanderous words to her trade or business but that the words uttered by the Respondent adversely affected the business of the Appellant. Counsel relying on Supreme Group of Companies Ltd V. Bendel Newspapers Co. Ltd (2001) 14 NWLR. (Pt.734) 597 urged the Court to hold that in law the ordinary and natural meaning of words may either be an implied or informed or indirect meaning, and may include any implication or inference.
The Appellant’s counsel submitted that by virtue of the provision of Section 4 of the Defamation law of Bendel State as applicable in Edo State, the Appellant did not need to prove special damages as long as the words are defamatory, even if the words were not spoken of her in her office, business, profession or calling. It was also mentioned that the decision of the Court below that though the words were defamatory but since they were not calculated to disparage the Appellant in her office, business or profession, she was not entitled to her claim against the Respondent without proof of special damages, was reached per-incuriam without cognisance of the extant law. Counsel referred the Court to Section 5 of the Defamation Law, Cap. 52, Law of Bendel State 1988.
Appellant’s Counsel finally submitted that in law, an action for slander will lie without proof of special damage, where the action falls under any one of the followings; (1) Where the words impute a crime for which the Plaintiff can be made to suffer physically; (2) Where the words impute to the Plaintiff a contagious or infections disease; (3) Where the words are calculated to disparage the Plaintiff in any office; profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of publication; (4) Where the words impute adultery or unchastely to a woman or girl.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
The Court stated the law that in an action for damages for defamation, be it libel or slander, the law requires the Claimant to plead in his pleadings and prove by credible and cogent evidence the essential elements of the tort of defamation which are that the words complained of are defamatory, the words complained of refer to the Claimant, the words complained of were published by the Defendant and the resultant damages in case of slander except where it is actionable per se without proof of damages. Onyejike V. Anyasor (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 437; Iloabuchi V. Phillips (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 6860 43. The Court stated that in law, it is these ingredients that constitute a prima facie case which a Claimant must make out for the Defendant to be required to lead evidence in his defence. That where the Claimant fails to establish these ingredients, then no prima facie case of defamation could be said to have been made out against a Defendant and in such circumstances, there would be nothing whatsoever for the Defendant to prove in his defence since a Defendant is in law under no duty to prove anything in his defence if the Claimant has not made out his case at least on a prima facie basis. The Court referred to “The Right To A Good Name: Law of Defamation Simplified by Sir Hon Justice Biobele Abraham Georgewill, Published in 2011 by Convince Concepts PH @ pp.63 – 64”.
The Court stated that in order to succeed, the Claimant in an action for damages for defamation by way of slander is to prove that the words were defamatory. The Court opined that defamatory words may be expressly defamatory on its face or it may be ambiguous or innocuous. The Court stated that the real test is whether under the circumstances in which the words were alleged to have been published, reasonable persons to whom the publication was made would be likely to understand it in a defamatory sense. The Court cited Koko V. Midwest Newspaper (1977) 11 NSCC 11.
In the application of the reasonable person test, the Court stated that a defamatory word is that which tends to bring down the reputation of another or expose him to odium and ridicule in the estimation of reasonable members of the society. Also, that it does not necessarily mean that such a word must impute a moral fault against the Claimant. Akufere V. Sketch Publishing Co. Ltd. (1971) 1 UILR 13 @ p. 15.
Relying on Dalumo V. The Sketch Publishing Co. Ltd. (1972) 1 All NLR 130, the Court emphasised the importance of inserting or including in the Claimant’s statement of claim, the allegation that the words complained of were spoken or written of and concerning the Claimant’; that the very essence of the law of defamation is the protection of the reputation and estimation of the Claimant in the opinion and eyes of others. The Court mentioned that in law, no matter the gravity of the imputation made, no speech or writing is esteemed to amount to defamation unless it refers to and reflects on some particular person or persons.
The Court aligned itself with the holding of the trial Court that despite the strident denial by the Respondent, the word uttered and published of the Appellant were highly defamatory words and clearly referred to the Appellant. Cited UBN Ltd. V. Oredien (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 355.
The Court then stated the trite position of the law that once a claim of slander is founded on imputation of crime or imputation of contagious and infectious disease, or imputation of unchastity or adultery against a woman or imputation affecting professional business reputation, then damages are presumed and therefore, need not be pleaded and proved in order to succeed in such an action for damages for defamation by way of slander. See Olaniyi V. Elero (2006) LPELR – 5237 (CA), Egbe V. Adefarasin (1987) I NWLR (Pt. 47) 1 @ p. 20.
On a final note, the Court relying on Section 5 of the Defamation Law, Cap. 52, Laws of Bendel State 1988 stated that the imputation amounted clearly to words spoken of the Appellant which are reasonably likely to and had indeed injured the Appellant in her trade and or business as a trader as testified to by the Claimant’s witnesses. That in law, it clearly amounts to slander actionable per se without any need to allege and prove actual or special damages as erroneously held by the Court below.
In conclusion, the Court held that the Court below was gravely in error when it held that the Appellant failed to prove her claims against the Respondent. The Court invoked its powers under Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004 and assessed damages at the sum of N5,0000,000. 00 only to assuage the Appellant’s losses and damages to her reputation in the line of her trade.
HELD
On the whole, the appeal was allowed. The judgment of the lower Court was set aside in its stead, the Court of Appeal granted the Claimant’s claims.
Appearances:
Dr. M. O. Oseghale with him, For Appellants(s)
- Agbonghale, Esq.
Compiled by LawPavilion
