Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Newswatch Comm. Vs. Atta (2006) CLR 4(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on April 28th 2006

Brief

  • Question of mixed law and fact
  • Fair hearing
  • Arrest of judgement
  • Refusal of judge to hear counsel

Facts

This appeal has so much to do with dates and all that. It is an appeal in which the Appellant complains of denial of fair hearing on the ground that the learned trial Judge refused its application to arrest the judgment delivered on 9th May, 1996. It is a case where the Appellant, who was the Defendant, had not the time to present its defence in Court but finally had all the time in the world to file a motion to arrest the judgment delivered on 9th May, 1996. Fair hearing is fair hearing when and if it is fair to both parties.

It is a case of libel. The Respondent as Plaintiff sued the Defendant, the Appellant, for libel. The Plaintiff claimed N25,000.00 damages for libel published by the Defendant in the Newswatch Magazine Volume 19, No 11 of 14 March, 1994 at page 7 under the story titled "Fruits of His Labour". The Plaintiff also needed perpetual injunction and he asked for it. The Plaintiff was a former Inspector-General of Police. The Plaintiff case as narrated by the learned trial Judge in the judgment is that the Plaintiff was in breach of his oath of office giving undue protection and respect to Chief Fred Ajudua, who was at all times material to the publication suspected of having committed some criminal offences or that the said Chief Fred Ajudua is a personal friend of the Plaintiff and was thereby immune to any arrest or questioning or any other police procedure that was necessary to determine his involvement in the commission of the offence. Plaintiff also averred that the words complained of in the article in their ordinary and natural meaning meant and were understood to mean:

  • "a.
    That the Plaintiff was unfit to hold the office of the Inspector-General of Police by reason of favouritism, undue respect for members of the public over and above his official duties as Inspector-General and neglect of Police procedure and protocol.
  • b.
    That by virtue of his friendship with Chief Fred Ajudua the Plaintiff was prepared to cancel or call off any important meeting with his subordinates in order to attend to mere personal visits.
  • c.
    That the Plaintiff in breach of his Oath of Office gave undue preference and regard to a member of the public over his official duties as a Police Officer and in consequence of all these the Plaintiff had been seriously injured in his character and reputation in respect of his profession and office as Inspector-General of Police and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt."

The Defendant was duly served the Statement of Claim. Although the Defendant was served with the Statement of Claim before the hearing of the case it did not file a statement of Defence until after PW3 gave evidence. The Defendant filed a Statement of Defence and a Counter-Claim. The Defendant counter-claimed N30,000,000.00 from the Plaintiff as damages for libel as well as an order of injunction. And so both slammed at the other a libel suit and an injunction to match. The Defendant's claim was N5,500,000.00 more than that of the Plaintiff in terms of damages.

Read More