These appeals are from decisions given by S O. Ilori J at the High Court, Ikeja in 1989 Simply put, the main issues arising in the appeals are whether the appellant is entitled to further and better particulars of facts as to the publication of an alleged libel and whether the damages awarded were justified. As a result of the learned trial judge's approach to the proceedings, it is impossible to do justice to the said issues without stating certain facts which might not otherwise have been strictly necessary. It would be laborious, I should say, to state those facts in full detail. That would take too much attention. I cannot say either with what accuracy I can abridge the facts and then be able to give them the interpretation that will be clearly obvious. However, having studied all the available facts very carefully, I feel I have a full view of them and shall attempt to state them in summary form.

In March, 1988 each of the respondents in these consolidated appeals took out a writ of summons against the appellant for an alleged libel claiming N5,000,000.00 damages. The appellant took certain issues with the respondents on the face of the respective statements of claim filed by them. First, it was sought to have the actions struck out, or alternatively further proceedings therein stayed pending certain events. Proceedings on that score were fought to the Supreme court, and they went against the appellant herein (respondent in the Supreme Court: See Akilu v Fawehinmi (No 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (pt 102) 122 In the meantime one of the respondens (Col Halilu Akilu) in the present appeal had, upon a motion filed by him o 13 April, 1988, sought to obtain judgment in default of pleadings. While the proceedings which ended up in the Supreme Court were being pursued, it would appear that the motion for judgment was kept in abeyance. The record of proceedings compiled for the purposes of the present appeal is not very clear on this. Second, after the judgment of the Supreme Court (as reported above) which had been announced on 5 December, 1988 (but full reasons given for it on 6 March, 1989) the other respondent as plaintiff (Lt Col A K Togun) filed a motion on 7 December, 1988 for an order;

On 12 May, 1989, the learned trial Judge delivered a ruling wherein he dismissed the two motions (B) and (C) filed by the appellant. He therein also allowed the motion of the respondent for judgment. He entered interlocutory judgment against the defendant on the plaintiff's claims on the statement of claim and then said. The plaintiff is hereby granted liberty to lead evidence on quantum of damages. The plaintiff (respondent) however led no such evidence. The learned trial judge allowed the respondents counsel to address him on the issue of damages that same 12 May, 1989. On 2 June, 1989 he gave judgment on the quantum of damages. He said inter alia:

This was in respect of Col Akilu's suit. A similar judgment was given for Lt Col Togun.

The appellant filed two separate appeals in each suit one filed on 15th May, 1989 against the interlocutory judgment given on 12May, 1989 and the other filed on 5 June, 1989 against the decision on damages given on 2 June, 1989. The grounds of appeal and issues for determination in regard to the interlocutory decision are expectedly the same in each suit. That is the position also in regard to the decision o damages. The appellant has raised three issues for determination from the eleven grounds of appeal against the interlocutory judgment of 12 May, 1989 and also three issues from the fourteen grounds of appeal against the decision of 2 June, 1989 on damages. They are as follows:-