Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Aromolaran V. Agoro (2014) CLR 11(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on November 28th 2014

Brief

  • Interpretation of Statute – Literal rule of
  • Libel
  • Document - Ways of proving the contents of a document
  • Secondary evidence of Public documents
  • Section 90(1) (c) Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 108 Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 131(1) Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 110 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 111 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 93 (1) of Evidence Act
  • Section 97 (2) (2) (c) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 96(i) (c) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 96(2) (a) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 97 (i) (e) and 2(c) of the Evidence Act 1990
  • Section 104 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 90(1) (c) of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 231 of the Evidence Act 2011 (As amended)
  • Section 96 of the Evidence Act, 1990
  • Section 94 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1990
  • Section 93 of the Evidence Act 1990
  • Section 97 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 97 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 100 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 97 (2) of the Evidence Act of 1990

Facts

This appeal is against the judgment of Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, delivered on the 9th day of April, 2003, which confirmed the judgment of Oyo State High Court delivered on the 30th day of September, 1997. The facts relevant to the case are simple.

The respondent as plaintiff complained of a libellous publication against him by the appellant as defendant, in a letter dated 12th August, 1984 written and sent to the then Military Governor of Oyo State, Colonel Oladayo Popoola admitted as Exhibit "p7" at the trial, pleaded in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim dated 18th March, 1992.

The pivot upon which the respondent rested his case reads thus: "The certificate which he carries about now was forged and was not the certificate issued to him just as Olapade Agoro claims that he has B.Sc (Engineering) and MSc. (Engineering) when in actual fact he has never seen the inside of any university anywhere in the world. His academic credentials such as Certificate and Transcripts should be probed by the NSO and Interpol to establish their genuineness."

Both parties pleaded the said Exhibit P.7 and sought reliance on it at the trial. The respondent herein caused a subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum to issue on the official of the Oyo State Ministry of Chieftaincy Affairs Governors' office to come to Court with a Certified True Copy of the Exhibit and also to give evidence on same.

Strange enough the 2nd witness of the plaintiff came with a different version of Exhibit P.7 which the trial Court admitted as "Exhibit P.1". In view of the distasteful conduct of this witness, the respondent thought he was trying to suppress a vital documentary evidence which is germane and fundamental to his case. His counsel accordingly applied to the learned trial judge who gave his leave that the witness be treated as hostile under Section 207 of the Evidence Act now Section 231 of the amended 2011 Evidence Act.

The appellant did not give evidence in support of his pleading at the trial. It should be noted however, that right from onset he pleaded specifically at page 17 of his Further Amended Statement of Defence that Exhibit P.7 was a forgery.

The respondent's counsel proffered his address while the appellant's counsel declined to address the Court on the matter. In his judgment the learned trial judge granted the claim and awarded N2,500,000 (Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) general damages to the respondent. He also granted the injunction sought by the Respondent.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal Ibadan Division which dismissed the appeal with costs. Not satisfied with the judgment appellant has further appealed to this Court.

Issues

Whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal can be allowed to stand in...

Read More