PRINCE ADELEKE ADEDOYIN (PLAINTIFF)

v.

NIGERIAN NATIONAL PRESS LIMITED & ANOTHER (DEFENDANTS)

(1964) All N.L.R. 431

Division: High Court, Lagos

Date of Judgment: 13th January, 1964

Case Number: LD/553/62

Before: Onyeama, Ag. C.J.

The plaintiff brought the action, against the first defendant and its editor, claiming £100,000 damages for libel published by the defendants in the Nigerian Morning Post of Monday 24th September 1962 entitled "Drag-net for two as Adedoyin reported missing", and also that the defendants, on the same day, displayed posters all over the country bearing the words "Speaker Adedoyin Missing." The plaintiff pleaded that "the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff has gone into hiding as he is involved in the illegal importation of arms and ammunition into the country."

The defendants admitted the publication and pleaded justification and fair comment, but denied the innuendo meaning put to the words by the plaintiff. Before the trial, Counsel representing the defendants brought an application, pursuant to Order 19, rule 6(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Annual Practice) and Order 32, rule 16 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to deliver to the defendants particulars of facts and matters on which the plaintiff relies in support of the innuendo-the application was later withdrawn by Counsel on behalf of the defendants.

At the trial, evidence of extrinsic facts about the conditions prevailing in Western Nigeria at the time of the publication, which supported the innuendo meaning, was given by the plaintiff and his witnesses without any objection from the defence except at the conclusion of the case in the address of defence Counsel.

HELD:

(1)     The absence of particulars, as required by R.S.C. Order 19, rule 6(2), is a good ground for objecting to the evidence when it is offered, but is no reason for disregarding the evidence of extrinsic facts after it had been let in.

(2)     I find that the publications in their ordinary meaning and in the innuendo meaning pleaded are libellous of the plaintiff and since the defences raised are justification and fair comment what have to be justified are that the plaintiff went into hiding from the police and that he was involved in the illegal importation of arms and ammunition into the country, for these constitute the pith and marrow of the libel. It is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff was not present when his houses were searched in Ibadan and at Shagamu. And for the plea of fair comment to prevail it has to be shown that the essential facts are true.

OBITER:

The procedure for pleading innuendo appears to be that there will have to be three paragraphs in a Statement of Claim where previously two have served. In the first paragraph the defamatory words will be set out as hitherto. It may be that they will speak for themselves. If not, a second paragraph will set out those innuendoes or indirect meanings that go beyond the literal meaning of the words but which the pleader claims to be inherent in them. Thirdly, if the pleader has the necessary material, he can plead a secondary meaning of legal innuendo supported by particulars under R.S.C., Order 19, rule 6(2).

The essential distinction between the second and third paragraphs is that particulars under the rule must be appended to the third.

Case referred to:-

Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Limited (1963) 2 All E.R. 151.

Laws referred to:-

Defamation Act, 1961 sections 7 and 8.

Rules of the Supreme Court (Annual Practice) Rules, Order 19, rule 6(2).

High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, Order 32, rule 16.

Moor Q.C. (with his Ebube), for the Plaintiff.

Shyngle, Q.C. (with him Atandare and Rhodes) for the Defendant.

Onyeama, Ag. C. J. of Lagos:-The plaintiff claims £100,000 damages for libel. The publication complained of was contained on page 16 of the "Nigerian Morning Post" newspaper of Monday the 24th September, 1962. The first defendants were the publishers of the newspaper and the second defendant was its editor.

The article complained of was as follows:-"Drag-net for two as Adedoyin reported missing

WANTED: ENAHORO ADEBANJO

In Lagos yesterday, the police declared two top Action Group members as "wanted men."

The men are Chief Anthony Enahoro, Opposition Spokesman on foreign affairs and Mr Ayo Adebanjo, an Ibadan lawyer, and one-time president of the U.K. branch of the party.

Also yesterday, it was reported that the Speaker of the suspended Western House of Assembly, Prince Adeleke Adedoyin, had been missing for days.

Two days ago, police were reported to have searched Prince Adedoyin's residence in Ibadan and it was reported that nothing incriminating was found.

Usually reliable sources said in Lagos yesterday that the imposition of a house arrest on Chief Awolowo is not unconnected with the present investigations which have led to seizure of arms and ammunitions in several parts of the country."

(See exhibit 1)

The plaintiff further complains that on the day this offending article was published in the newspaper the defendants displayed posters all over the country bearing the words: "Speaker Adedoyin Missing." (See exhibit 2)

Pleadings were directed and filed. The Statement of Claim set out the portion of page 16 of the "Nigerian Morning Post" of the 24th September, 1962, complained of. It also set out the words on the poster of that day.

Paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim reads:-

"By the said words the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff has gone into hiding as he is involved in the illegal importation of arms and ammunition into the country.

The amended Statement of Defence admitted the publications while denying that "they meant or were understood to mean what is alleged in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim."

The defendants further pleaded:-

"4.     Insofar as the words consist of statements of fact the said words are in their natural and ordinary meaning, and without the said alleged meanings, true in substance and in fact; and insofar as the said words consist of expressions of opinion they are fair comment made in good faith and without malice upon the said facts which are a matter of public interest.

"12. The defendants plead sections 7 and 8 of the Defamation Act 1961."

On the 15th November, 1963, the defendants' solicitors filed notice of a motion for an order "pursuant to Order 19, rule 6(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Annual Practice) and Order 32, rule 16 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules" that the plaintiff do deliver to the defendants within seven days "full particulars in writing of the following matters in the Statement of Claim:-

Under paragraph 4: Particulars of facts and matters on which the plaintiff relies in support of the innuendo.

And that in default of delivery of such particulars the plaintiff be precluded from giving evidence in support of the innuendo at the trial of this action, and that the defendants have three days after delivery of the said particulars to deliver their further defence (if necessary) and that the costs of and incidental to this application, be the defendants' costs in any event."

The affidavit in support of the application averred, in paragraph 2, that the solicitors on the 22nd October, 1963, 'served on the plaintiff's solicitors an application in writing for further and better particulars of the Statement of Claim, with particular reference to paragraph 4 of the said Statement of Claim to be given within seven days.

Paragraph 3 of the affidavit sets out that:-

"up till the time of my making this affidavit the plaintiff's solicitors have not supplied the said particulars."

The motion came up before Lambo, J. on the 25th November, 1963, and "upon an application made at a later stage of the proceeding by Egerton Shyngle Esquire Q.C., to withdraw the application after due considerations;" it was ordered "that leave to withdraw this application be granted and is hereby struck out with £2.2. 0d. costs in favour of the plaintiff/respondent against the defendants/appellants."