Whether a Plaintiff Must Call the Person(s) to Whom the Defamatory Words Were Published as Witness in an Action for Defamation

CASE TITLE: EMMANUEL v. FELIX & ORS (2022) LPELR-57960(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH JUNE, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: TORT

LEAD JUDGMENT: JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the Tort of Defamation.

FACTS

​ This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State in SUIT NO: ADSY/66/2012 delivered on 29th January, 2020 by Honourable Justice Bulila Ladukiya Ikharo.

​The material facts of the case leading to this appeal is that the 1st and 2nd Respondents acting on the belief that the Appellant had committed the torts of defamation and false imprisonment against them, instituted an action before the trial Court via a writ of summons filed on 2nd July, 2012. The basis for the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s case was that the Appellant made a complaint dated 9th September, 2011, to the Commissioner of Police Adamawa State command, Yola accusing the 1st and 2nd Respondents of sponsoring the 3rd Respondent to kill the Appellant, which led to the arrest and detention of the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the Nigerian Police based on the complaint. However, the 3rd Respondent later recanted and turned around to accuse the Appellant of procuring him to falsely accuse the 1st and 2nd Respondents. At the trial Court, the 1st and 2nd Respondents via a statement of claim sought the following:

1. A declaration that the acts of the defendants are altogether illegal and malicious

2. A declaration that the acts of the defendants amount to the torts of false imprisonment and defamation

3. N3,000,000 general damages for false imprisonment

4. N1,000,000 general damages for defamation

5. N555,000.00 being the total amount expended on transportation getting someone to go and stand as their surety and engaging counsel to prosecute this claim.

In response, the Appellant filed a statement of defence with other requisite processes, which were subsequently amended. Processes were exchanged and the matter proceeded to trial.

The trial Court in a judgment delivered on 29th January, 2020, found that the 1st and 2nd Respondents as Claimants had established the torts of false imprisonment and defamation against the Appellant and ordered as follows:

i. The sum of (N1,500,000.00) One Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira damages against the 1st Defendant for false imprisonment.

b. The sum of 100,000 (One Hundred Thousand) against the 2nd Defendant.

c. The sum of N30,000 (Thirty Thousand) against the 3rd Defendant.

ii. 1,000,000.00 (one Million Naira) damages against the 1st Defendant for defamation.

iii. The sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred thousand) for expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs for transportation to & fro Yola and for securing the service of a counsel.

iv. An apology by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff (2nd & 3rd Defendants having already apologized.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court determined the appeal based on the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the trial Court was right when it entered judgment for the 1st and 2nd respondents against the appellant for the tort of defamation.

2. Whether the trial Court was right when it entered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants for the tort of false imprisonment.

DECISION/HELD

In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal succeeded in part.

RATIOS:

• TORT – DEFAMATION: Whether a plaintiff must call the person(s) to whom the defamatory words were published as witness in an action for defamation; effect of failure
• TORT – DEFAMATION: Meaning and nature of defamation
• TORT – FALSE IMPRISONMENT: Meaning and nature of the tort of false imprisonment; what a plaintiff must show to succeed in an action for false imprisonment
• TORT – FALSE IMPRISONMENT: Instance(s) where the tort of false imprisonment will be held to have been committed