Defamation Flashcards
Abalako v Akinsete
The elements of defamation.
Lewis v Daily Telegraph, [1964] AC 234
The defendant newspaper stated that the fraud squad were investigating the affairs of a company and named the chairman, one of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the statement meant not only that the company was being investigated for fraud but also that they were guilty of fraud. Held:
The House of Lords held that the statement was not capable of bearing that alternative meaning. To have ruled otherwise would have meant that crime investigations could not be reported.
Mutual Aid Society v Akerele, (1966) NMLR 257
The defendant instructed an auctioneer to advertise certain properties for sale by public auction. The auctioneer mistakenly included the plaintiff’s house. Held:
The words in the advertisement which implied that the plaintiff’s property as being sold in the exercise by the mortgage of their property sale, the plaintiff having failed to pay a mortgage debt, were defamatory. It was held that although the particular act which gives the cause of action may not be authorized, still if the act is done in the course of employment which is authorized, then the master is liable for the act of the servant.
Adeleke v National Bank of Nigeria Limited, (1978) 1 LRN 157
The plaintiff had an account with the defendant bank which was in credit. He issued a cheque to a third party which was drawn on the bank. The cheque was returned to the plaintiff drawer unpaid. Held: The defendant bank was liable for defamation. The return of a cheque to a drawer whilst his account has sufficient funds to pay the amount written on the cheque raises the innuendo that the drawer was not credit worthy and therefore dishonest.
Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newsapers Ltd, [1929] 2 KB 331
The defendant newspapers published a photograph of Mr. Cassidy and a certain lady with the caption, “Mr Cassidy and Miss X whose engagement have been announced”. Mr. Cassidy’s wife sued the newspaper for libel alleging an innuendo, that people who knew her would think that her husband was unmarried and that she was not his lawful wife and had thus been living in an immoral cohabitation. Held:
The defendants were liable for defamation. Innuendo was proved and Mrs. Cassidy was entitled to damages even though the defamation might have been unintentional. It was stated that “liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer but on the fact of the defamation.
Johnson v daily times
There must be a reasonable conclusion of defamation by a man of a reasonable standard and not that of a low mentality.
Eyo v Eastern Nigeria Info
Palmer J held that innuendo will fail where “the word complained of, read in their context, conveyed to the ordinary reader with no knowledge of any an extraneous facts.”
Bakare v Ishola, (1959) WNLR 106
There had been a fight preceded by a quarrel between the parties and in the heat of anger the appellant had in the presence of others allegedly, spoken of the respondent in Yoruba, the words, “Ole ni o. Elewon, iwo ti o sese ti ewon de yi” which in English meant: “You are a thief. Ex-convict, you have just come out of prison.” The respondent, lshola. sued for slander and obtained judgement in the Magistrate Court. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appellant was not liable. The words complained of were mere vulgar abuse as they had been spoken while the parties were exchanging words which led to blows and that, as is usual in this country, it was a matter of common knowledge of which the Court took judicial notice that people commonly abuse each other as a prelude to a fight and call each other all kinds of names and things, in the heat of anger, which abuses no one took seriously as they are mere words of anger. The actual words complained of had not been proved in view of the variant versions of the words given in evidence by the plaintiff and one of his witnesses. The words should have been stated exactly as the defendant appellant spoke them in Yoruba language and an English translation then furnished. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Ibeanu v Uba, (1972) ECSLR 194 at 195
The plaintiff saw the defendant passing and called him to sympathise with him as he had heard that thieves had stolen the properties of the defendant. Where upon the presence of onlookers, the defendant, in Igbo language allegedly accused the plaintiff of stealing his goat thus: “Josiah, Josiah, iga kpo ndi ori bia zulu ewum, bia malu uma najum” which in English meant “Josiah, Josiah, you brought the thieves with whom you stole my goat and you have now come to ask me.”
Held:
The defendant was liable for slander. These words were not mere vulgar abuse but amounted to slander. The words charged the plaintiff with specific wrongdoing and therefore amounted to defamation.
Benson v West African Pilot
Written abuse does not constitute a vulgar language and thus, the defendant will still remain liable.
Robinson v Mellor
Lord Kerry held that “for mere general abuse spoken, no action lies.”
The Service Press Ltd v Azikiwe, (1951) 14 WACA 176
The appellants published a libellous item concerning a Ben Azikiwe”.The respondent brought action for defamation. There was insuficient proof that the article referred to the respondent. Held: The claim must fail as there was no proof that the Ben Azikiwe referred to in the publication was the same person as honourable Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe. However, where the name is not mentioned, evidence may be led to show that the facts, circumstances or information published sufficiently disclose the identity of the plaintiff as the person referred to.
Hulton v Jones, (1910) AC 20
The defendants published a humorous newspaper story of the discreditable behaviour in Dieppe of a fictitious character called Artemus Jones. He was said to be a churchwarden in Peckham. Unknown to the author or editor, the claimant was also known as Artemus Jones, although he had actually been baptised Thomas Jones. He was a barrister not a churchwarden, did not live in Peckham and had never visited Dieppe. But he had contributed articles to the newspaper in the past and some of his friends thought that the article referred to him. He sued the owners of the newspaper for libel Held:
He was awarded £1,750, a decision that was upheld by the House of Lords. It did not matter that the defendants did not intend to defame him; all that mattered was what a reasonable person would understand the words to mean.
Dalumo v The Sketch Publishing Co, (1972) All NLR 567
The defendants published an article about the top officials of Nigeria Airways. The plaintiff, a top official of Nigeria Airways brought action for defamation. The issue was whether the article referred to the plaintiff.
Held:
The Supreme Court affirming the judgement of the trial judge held that since the class of people referred to was so small and ascertainable there was no doubt that the plaintiff came within it. FATAYI-WILLIAMS JSC as he then was explaining the law said: - “It is an essential element of the cause of action for defamation, that the words complained of should be published of the plaintiff… It is not necessary that the words should refer to the plaintiff by name. Provided that the words could be understood by reasonable people to refer to him, and this is the test in every case. It is sufficient. As the law stands, the test of whether: words that do not specifically name a plaintiff refer to him or not is: are the words such as… would lead persons who knew the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to?”
Dafe v Tsewinor, (1967) NMLR 331
Idigbe CJ. held that certain defamatory statements made about “a Minister from Aboh” in the suspended Mid-West Government were capable of referring and did refer to the plaintiff who was a Minister of Finance and, the only Minister from Aboh in that government.
