Definition of Defamation
In Daura v Danhauwa,[1]the court defined the tort of defamation as:
[A]statement made by a person against another, calculated to bring a plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, contempt, disrepute and Odium. It is a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of the society and which causes him to be shunned and avoided or which is calculated to injure him in his office, profession or trade.
– Types of defamation
There are two species of defamation: libel and slander. Libel is any publication in print, writing, pictures or signs that injures the reputation of somebody. Slander, on the other hand, means a defamatory statement made/conveyed by spoken words, sounds, looks, signs and gestures which injure the reputation of somebody.[2]
– Libel
Libel is actionable per se. If a Plaintiff proves that a libel has been published against him without legal justification, his cause of action is complete. He need not prove that he has suffered any resulting actual damage or injury to his reputation for such damage is presumed.[3]
To prove libel, the Plaintiff therefore needs to prove by cogent and credible evidence the following:[4]
- The words complained of must be written
- The words must be false
- The words must be defamatory or convey a defamatory imputation
- The words must refer to the Plaintiff
- It must be the Defendant who published the words
- Publisher of a defamatory document
In Ogbonnaya v Mbalewe,[5] the court stated thus:
The principle of law regarding liability is that where a defamatory matter is contained in a book, periodical, or newspaper, there are normally a series of publications of which constitutes a separate tort. First, there is the publication by the author to the publisher for which the author is solely liable. Secondly, there is the publication by the author and publisher jointly to the printer, for which the author and publisher are jointly liable, see CUTHER V MCPHAIL (1962) 2 QB 292. It is usually open to the Plaintiff to sue in respect of the separate publications set out above.
In Hector Osondu and others v Mr. Benneth Ngonadi,[6] Odedola JCA held:
There is no doubt that the publisher of a newspaper who allegedly published defamatory words is a necessary party in respect of whose presence is ultimately required in order to effectually resolve or settle the dispute before the court. A trial court cannot be held to have been competently constituted to determine a suit bordering on libel without the presence of the alleged publisher of the libelous publication.
and in paragraph E the learned Jurist continued:
It will be grossly unfair and/or occasion great injustice if the publisher/newspaper that published the alleged libelous publication is left out from facing whatever be the consequences of its action, while prosecuting only its employees.
- The words must be defamatory
For the words to be considered defamatory, the test is whether reasonable men to whom the publication was made will likely understand them in a libelous sense.[7] Where defamatory words are published without lawful excuse the law conclusively presumes the Defendant was motivated by malice i.e. malice in law which the Plaintiff need not prove.[8]The court may presume malice by the Defendant’s conduct generally but particularly by other derogatory statements made of the Plaintiff by the Defendant and Defendant’s lack of apology.[9]
– Qualified privilege
Qualified privileged is when the person who makes the documentation has a moral duty to make it to the person to whom he does make it and the person who receives it has an interest in hearing it. Both of these conditions must exist in order that the occasion may be privileged.[10]
For the defence of qualified privilege to avail the Defendant there must be a common interest between the maker of the statement and the person to whom it was made. This is essential and the facts relied upon by the maker must be true, a mere belief will not sustain the defence. [11]
– When will the defence of fair comment be defeated
The defence of fair comment will be defeated if the plaintiff can show that the comment was not made honestly, or that it was actuated by malice.[12]
– The defence of justification in a libel case; meaning of a plea of justification
A plea of justification means that all the words were true and covers not only the bare statements of facts in the alleged libel but also any imputation which the words in their context may be taken to convey.[13]
– Whether a limited liability company can be injured in its feelings; and also sue for defamation
It is settled law that a limited liability company cannot be injured in its feelings as it has no feelings; it can only be injured in its pocket.[14]Its reputation can be injured by a libel, but that injury must sound in money. The injury need not necessarily be confined to loss of income. Its goodwill may be injured.It can sue for loss of profit, shortfall in turnover or anticipatory loss but not for natural grief and distress, and not for social disadvantage.[15]
– Whether malice is required to be proved in an action for defamation
In an action for defamation, there is no need to prove malice. Malice is implied from the mere publication of the defamatory matter. One of the exceptions is where the publication was made on a privileged occasion. In the case of NTA v Babatope,[16] it was held that qualified privilege is a defence to an untrue publication, which can only be claimed when the occasion of the publication is privileged. [17]
[1] (2009) LPELR – 3714 (CA) 7 paras C-E.
[2] Society BIC S.A. v Charzin Ind. Ltd. (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt 1398) 497; Omon and others v Ekpa (2019) LPELR-47978(CA); DIN v African Newspapers of (Nig) Ltd (1990) LPELR-947(SC) 28-29 paras. E-B.
[3] Mr. Biodun Oduwole and others v Prof Tam David West (2010) LPELR – 2263 (SC) 15-16 paras G-B; Ezegbo and another v Igbokwe 2016 LPELR – 40784 CA.
[4]Guardian Newspapers Ltd and another v Rev. Pastor Ajeh (2011) LPELR 1343 SC AT 5.paras D-F. Iloabachie v Iloabachie (2005) 5 SC Pt 1 149 AT 179. Chima Ogbonnaya v First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2015) LPELR – 24731 (CA) 29 paras B-E.
[5] (2005) 1 NWLR Pt 907 252; (2004) LPELR 5878 (CA) 10 paras B- D.
[6](2016) LPELR -415 28 (CA) 13 paras A-C.
[7]Yahaya v Munchika (2000) 7 NWLR Pt 664 300 AT 314 paras F-H.
[8]African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc v Lt. General Jeremiah Useni (Rtd) 2014 LPELR 22954 CA.
[9]Western Publishing Co Ltd v Fagbemi (2015) LPELR-24735 CA.
[10]Iloabachie v Iloabachie (2005) 5 SC (Pt II) 146.
[11] Atoyebi v Odudu 1990 LPELR – 594 (SC) 21 paras E-F.
[12]Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers (1958) 1 WLR 743 at 747; African Newspapers v Coker (1973) 5 SC 257; Dumbo v Idugboe [1983] 1 SCNLR 29; DIN v African Newspapers of (Nig) Ltd (1990) LPELR-947(SC) 25-26 paras F-A .
[13]Digby v Financial News Ltd. (1907) 1 KB 502 at 509; Dumbo v Idugboe [1983] 1 SCNLR 29; DIN v African Newspapers of (Nig) Ltd (1990) LPELR-947(SC) 26 parasA-D.
[14]Lewis v Daily Telegraph, Ltd. (1963) 2 All ER 151 at 156.
[15]Duyile v Ogunbayo and Sons Ltd. (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt 72) 601 at 611;
Edem and another v Orpheo Nigeria Ltd and another (2003) LPELR-1006(SC) 11-12 paras D-F.
[16](1996) 4 NWLR (Pt 440) 75 at 96 F – G.
[17]Chilkied Security Services & DOG Farms Ltd v Schlumberger (Nig) Ltd and another (2018) LPELR-44391(SC) 17-19, paras. C