THE HON. MR. JUSTICE KALU ANYAH
v.
AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS OF NIGERIA LTD.
1992-LD-SC-416
Supreme Court
10th July, 1992.
Justices:
Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, J.S.C.
Salihu Modibbo Alfa Belgore, J.S.C.
Abubakar Bashir Wali, J.S.C.
Uche Omo, J.S.C
Olajide Olatawura, J.S.C. (Read The Leading Judgment)
Subject Matter(s):
1.Burden of Proof
2.Standard of Proof
3.Libel
4.Discretion of Court
Final Order:
Appeal Dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
PLEADINGS – Aim/object/purpose of pleadings
“…Obmiami Brick Obimiami Brick & Stone (Nig.) Ltd v. African Continental Bank Ltd. (1992) 3 N.W.L.R (Pt.229) 260 where the purpose of pleading is clearly stated on pages 293H to 294A thus: “It must be appreciated that there cannot be a better notice of the case a party intends to make than his pleading. It is a mere notice and can never be substituted for the evidence required in proof of the facts pleaded, subject however to an admission made by the other party. Unless a party through skilful cross-examination discredits the case of the other party, he is still bound to lead evidence in support of his own pleading.”
DISCRETION OF COURT – At what point will the discretion of a judge cease
“Where a Judge has no discretion in a matter or under a rule, the strict provision of the rules must be complied with. A discretion will cease to be one if it can only be exercised in one particular form.”
LIBEL – Effect of the defence of justification in libel cases
“The plea of justification in libel cases if sustained is a complete defence.”
INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – Attitude of an appellate court to the exercise of discretion made by lower courts; instances where an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of discretion made by a lower court
“It is not in all cases that an appeal court will interfere with the exercise of discretion by a trial Judge, simply because it did not favour one of the parties litigating before him. The court will not interfere with the exercise of the discretion in the absence of proof that it was wrongly exercised. You cannot lay down hard and fast rules as to the exercise of judicial discretion by a court, for the moment you do that, the discretion is fettered. Jones v. Curling 13 QBD 262.”
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT/ STARE DECISIS – Whether State(s) must follow a decision of the Western State Court of Appeal in the application of Rules of procedure
“Where a decision of the Western State Court of Appeal was in support of rules in any State, that State might follow it, however, if the decision of the Western State Court of Appeal is in conflict with the Rules of procedure in any State, that State is not bound to follow the decision.”
INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – Attitude of an appellate court to the exercise of discretion made by lower courts; instances where an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of discretion made by a lower court
“… and unless that discretion is shown to have been wrongly exercised or shown to have been exercised upon wrong principles or that the exercise was tainted by some illegality or substantial irregularity. This court will on principle not interfere with the exercise of that discretion…”
STANDARD OF PROOF – The required standard of proof where the commission of crime is in issue in any proceedings
“Since there is an allegation of crime the proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt – See S. 137 of the Evidence Act; See Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 S.C.1, (1984) 1 S.C.N.L.R 1…”
BURDEN OF PROOF – On whom lies the onus to prove defamation
“The onus in the instant case rests on the person who asserts that he has been defamed to prove. The mere plea of justification or fair comment on an alleged defamatory publication imputing criminality cannot shift the burden.”
INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – Attitude of an appellate court to the exercise of discretion made by lower courts; instances where an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of discretion made by a lower court
“Since what is involved is an exercise of discretion, an appellate court will not interfere with same unless it is wrongly exercised or is exercised on wrong principles. In Saraki v. Kotoye (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 143) 144 at 151. In Saraki v. Kotoye (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 143), “The proper role of a Court of Appeal where there is a proper exercise of discretion is not to interfere with the decision. To do so merely on the ground that the appellate Court would have exercised the discretion differently is an assault on justice and not within the statutory powers of the appeal court vide Hadmor Production Ltd v. Hamilton (1983) 1 AC 191 (220).” Also vide Kudoro v. Alaka (1956) 1 FSC 82 (83); (1956) SCNLR 255 and Solanke v. Ajibola (1968) 1 ANLR 46 (51), cited and relied on by respondent’s counsel.”
RULES OF COURT/STATUTORY PROVISION – Whether rules of Court take precedence over rules of convenience
“…Rules of court ex facie are meant to be observed, so they do take precedence over rules of convenience. The question of the rules of court reversing the law, as envisaged by appellants counsel, does not arise. Whilst the rules bind the Lagos State High Court the decision relied upon is at best persuasive. Nor is the fear of the defeat of the right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 33(1) of the Constitution justified. Whichever procedure is adopted the trial Court reserves the right under the rules of court and its inherent powers, to grant leave to either the appellant or the respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal whenever “surprise evidence” is led by the other party.”
COURT OF APPEAL – Extent of the bindingness of decisions of the Western State Court of Appeal on sub-ordinate courts
“Prior to the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Constitution in force was the 1963 Constitution. Western Nigeria had its Constitution. Under S. 52 of the 1963 Constitution of Western Nigeria a Court of Appeal was established for the Region. The Western State Court of Appeal was set up in 1967. The commencement date was 1st April, 1967 – See Western Nigeria Legal Notice 19 of 1967. Appeals from the various courts in that State had to go through the hierarchy of Courts in the Western State before reaching the Western State Court of Appeal. From the Western State Court of Appeal, appeals went to the Federal Supreme Court. No doubt the decisions of the Western State Court of Appeal were binding on the subordinate Courts in the Western State. Until such a decision was approved by the Federal Supreme Court, it was only of persuasive authority in the courts or other States. Section 3 of Decree No. 27 – Constitution (Miscellaneous Provisions (No. 2) restricted appeals from the High Court of Western State directly to the Supreme Court unless appeals filed before 1st June, 1967. As from 1st June, 1967 Appeals from the High Court of the State went to the Western State Court of Appeal.”
LIBEL – What a defendant relying on a plea of justification in an action for libel must prove to succeed
“Under a plea of justification, the onus is on the defendant to show that the alleged libel is true; in fair comment the onus is on him to show that the facts commented on are acknowledged to exist or are true. If the defendant brings evidence to prove the facts commented upon to be true or acknowledged to exist, the plaintiff should be entitled to produce evidence that they are neither acknowledged nor true. But he cannot divide his proof, bringing forward part of his evidence in the first instance and more in reply.”
