Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ojeme V. Momodu (1994) CLR 2 (e) (CA)

Brief

  • Defamation
  • Defence of justification
  • Defence of qualified privilege

Facts

The appellant a legal practitioner sued the respondent in the High court claiming the sum of One Million Naira as general damages for libel.

It was alleged that on the 7th June, 1987 the respondent falsely and maliciously wrote and published to the A.I.G. of Police the Nigeria Police Force Bendel/Ondo States concerning the plaintiff the following: "Is Lawyer J.A. Ojene above the Law?."

  • "I am constrained to ask the above question because of the very many utterances and action of lawyer J.A Ojeme which had at one time or the other amounted to civil and. or criminal offences but because of his habit of writing petitions against the defenseless law enforcement agents and the Judiciary whenever these complaints are brought before the appropriate authority, he would not be interrogated, talkless of prosecution. But a situation where lawyer J.A. Ojeme enjoys special preference whenever he commits civil criminal offences or where the common man now sees lawyer J.A Ojeme as being above the law, requires urgent investigation."

The respondent allegedly copied different persons, and organisations within and outside the then Bendel State The appellant claimed that the words referred to and were understood to refer to him in their natural and ordinary meaning. He also claimed to have been greatly injured in his credit and reputation and in his profession as a legal practitioner.

The appellant testified and called two legal practitioners to testify as witnesses at the trial. The respondent also testified and called nine witnesses.

Judgment was delivered over 3 months after the final addresses by the counsel. It was held that the respondent was covered by the defence of qualified privilege as the whole petition was written in an attempt to obtain redress against the appellant to persons who has power to call the appellant to order and also had a corresponding interest to receive it. He therefore dismissed the appellants claim with costs.

Being aggrieved with the judgment the appellant appealed to the court of Appeal.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether or not the learned Judge restricted himself to the Heading of...
    • Read More