CLAIM OF DEFAMATION UNDER NIGERIA LAW: HOW TO GO ABOUT IT

A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM OF DEFAMATION UNDER NIGERIA LAW: HOW TO GO ABOUT IT

INTRODUCTION

More often than not, people mark the words or gestures of others towards them as defamatory. For example, where Mr. Black tells his friend, Mr. White, that Mr. Red is a thief. It is ostensible that once Mr. Red gets intimated of the assertion of Mr. Black about him, he will feel terribly irritated with it – especially if it happens that Mr. Red is not truly a thief. In this scenario, it is apposite for Mr. Red to consider Mr. Black’s statement as defamatory.

The legal remedy available to Mr. Red to quench his irritational feeling towards Mr. Black is to sue the latter for defamation. The focus of this piece is to accentuate what Mr. Red needs to establish before a Nigerian court to be successful in his defamation claim. In achieving this focus, what the word defamation entails will be espoused.

WHAT IS DEFAMATION?

The apex court in Nigeria, per Nweze J.S.C., defines defamation in the case of Chilkied Security Services & Dog Farms Ltd v. Schlumberger (Nig) Ltd & anr (2018) LPELR-SC.85/2007 as the injury occasioned to another person’s reputation by either written or spoken words.

Put in other words, defamation is causing harm to the reputation of another person through word of mouth or written publication.

It is discernible from the above definitions, that a statement is not defamatory if it does not harm the reputation of the other person. Also capable of being gleaned from the definitions is that defamation can be oral or written. Hence, spoken words or the ones written on paper, either in the soft copy or hard copy, are capable of being held defamatory.?

In the strict sense, spoken words which are defamatory are considered or tagged as slander. Whilst, a defamatory written publication is regarded as Libel.

It is worth noting at this juncture that it is not only a human person that can be defamed. A company with a trading character, which is in law regarded as an artificial person, can also sue for defamation. See EDEM & ANOR V ORPHEO NIGERIA LTD. & ANOR (2003) LPELR-SC.171/199 (Pp. 22-24, paras. G-C)

The question that ensues from the above exposition is whether there is a gauge to determine when a statement will be held defamatory. Or, is it the mere assertion by Mr. Red that the defendant defamed him that a court acts upon to hold the defendant liable for defamation?

WHEN A STATEMENT WILL BE HELD DEFAMATORY

For a plaintiff to be successful in a claim of defamation, he must show to the court that the statement complained thereof is;

1.?????Defamatory, not to few members of the public, but to the general public;

2.?????Directed at him (the plaintiff) and;

3.?????Published to a third party.

Once a plaintiff is able to prove the aforementioned to the court, the court has no other choice than to grant him his relief as he has successfully proved that he was defamed by the defendant.

Hence, in the case of S.B.D. ALUMO V. THE SKETCH PUBLISHING CO LTD (1972) LPELR-SC.68/1970, where the respondent published an article titled “Oath of Secrecy at Airways” in its daily newspaper, upon the finding of the Nigerian Supreme Court that the content of the publication is defamatory and also intended and directed at the appellant, the apex court awarded the cost of 500pds as damages to the plaintiff.

The question that ensues from the above exposition is whether it is in all instances that a court will hold a defendant liable for defamation if his statement exhibits the abovementioned elements.

INSTANCES WHERE A DEFENDANT WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION

Notwithstanding the fact that the statement of a defendant is proven to have the above-highlighted elements of defamation, there are certain instances where such a defendant will not be held liable in defamation for uttering that statement. These instances include:

·????????Where the statement was uttered under a heat of passion:

This instance is regarded as a defense to a defamation claim. This is because the court, rather than hold the statement of the defendant as defamatory, will consider such defamatory statement as mere vulgar abuse and on that basis, the plaintiff’s claim for defamation will fail.

The rationale for this is not farfetched, Most individuals lose their self-control and constraint while in a scuffle or quarrel with another individual. This situation makes people utter words they would not think of if they were in their calm and ordinary sense. Thus, the malicious intent to taint the reputation of the party insulted cannot be said to be present in such a situation.

This defense was applied in the case Bakare v. Ishola (1959) W.N.L.R. 106. It was also applied recently by the Customary Court of Appeal in the case of Mrs. Nene Amoni v. Mr. Smart Amoni (Unreported) Appeal No: CCA/4/A/2002 Delivered on 31st March 2009. In that case, the respondent’s claim that the appellant’s statement, which was translated to mean that ‘the respondent is a bastard who does not know his father’, is defamatory failed because the statement was uttered during a quarrel between the two. The court, therefore, considered the statement of the respondent as mere vulgar abuse and nothing more.

It suffices that for a claim of defamation to succeed, the statement of the defendant complained thereof must not have been uttered during a quarrel. Otherwise, the defamation claim will fail because the court will construe such a statement to be mere vulgar abuse.

·????????Where the statement was uttered without malice:

This scenario negates an implied ingredient of defamation. Hence, it will render a defamation claim futile. The court has held time and again that actual malice is presumed in a claim of defamation. However, once a defendant can establish that the statement in question was not actuated by malice, the defamation claim will fail.

This situation is recognized as the defense of qualified privilege by the court and has been applied in a myriad number of cases. For example, in the case of Chilkied Security Services & Dog Farms Ltd v. Schlumberger (Nig) Ltd & anor (2018) LPELR-SC.85/2007, where the appellant complained that the respondent’s letter to the commissioner of police which alleges, among other things, that the appellant has armed robbers on its payroll was actuated by malice and therefore defamatory. The apex court dismissed the claim of the appellant and held that the respondent only sought for protection which is expected of him by writing all the allegations in the letter. Hence, the statement was not actuated by malice and therefore not defamatory.

·????????Where the complained statement is true:

More so, where the alleged defamatory statement of a defendant turns out to be nothing other than the true state of things, the court will refuse to grant such a claim of defamation. For example; if Mr. White’s assertion that Mr. Red is a thief is true, notwithstanding the injury caused to the reputation of Mr. Red, Mr. White will not be liable for defamation.

This scenario is, in law, recognized as the defense of truth.

CONCLUSION

It is limpid from the above exposition that for a plaintiff’s defamation claim to succeed in a Nigerian court, such a plaintiff must show that the statement complained of is defamatory, directed at him, and published to a third party. It is instructive to note that it is not in all instances that a defendant will be held liable for defamation even though all elements of defamation are present in his statement. Such instances include; where the statement is a mere vulgar abuse or where the statement is directed at a dead person or where the defense of qualified privilege or justification is established. It is therefore advised that intending litigants should take note of the highlighted points when considering instituting a defamation claim in a Nigerian court.