HOW/973/2017 – KELECHI MADUAGWU & ORS Vs.TIMOTHY NWACHUKWU & ORS- BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE INNOCENT. M. NJAKA- delivered -ON THURSDAY THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023 -In this judgment, the court assessed a defamation case where the plaintiffs claimed their reputation was harmed by the defendants. The court emphasized the need for evidence that defamatory statements were communicated to third parties and harmed the plaintiffs’ reputation. The plaintiffs failed to provide such evidence, and the court dismissed their case. The use of the term “hoodlum” was considered context-dependent, and without proof of harm to reputation, the plaintiffs’ claims were rejected.

 

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE

IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI

ON THURSDAY THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA

SUIT NO.:- HOW/973/2017

BETWEEN                           

1. KELECHI MADUAGWU
2. CHINENYE NWOGU
3. CHARLES AKUBUIRO
4. DESMOND IWUOZOR
5. CHIMEZIE AKUBUIRO
6. IKENNA EMEKOMA –                                PLAINTIFFS
7. AMABO EKEANYANWU
8. MR. CHRISTOPHER IWUALA
9. MR. DOMINIC OKORIE
10. MR. EUGENE IWUOZOR
11. MR. VINCENT NKEMAKOLAM

AND                      

1. TIMOTHY NWACHUKWU
2. MR. PETER EZIHE
3. CHIEF C.C. NWACHUKWU
4. CHIEF HARRISON UMUNNAKWE
5. MR. REUBENSON ELUCHIE –               DEFENDANTS
6. MR. CHIMA IBEGBULEM
7. MR. HILARY MADUAGWU
8. MR. CHIGBOMKPA AWUZIE

JUDGMENT

By Writ of Summons dated 20^th day of December 2017 and filed same day, assigned to this court for the 19^th January 2018, the plaintiffs claimed as follows:

A DECLARATION of the Honourable court that the use of the word “Hoodlums” by the defendants to refer to the plaintiffs in their petition to the commissioner of police Imo State command dated 10^th May 2017, through the law chambers of Bruno Emere & Co constitutes libel.

A DECLARATION of the Honourable court that the use of the words Hoodlums to refer to the plaintiffs was intended to lower the plaintiffs in the estimation of right thinking members of the society.

A DECLARATION of the Honourable court that the publication of the use of word “Hoodlum” as referred to the plaintiffs by the defendants was aimed at exposing the plaintiffs to hatred, contempt and ridicule as well as to cause other people to shun and avoid them.

The sum of N20, 000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) against the defendants jointly and severally being compensation for the tort of libelous Defamation.

The sum of N10, 000,000 (Ten Million Naira) against the defendants jointly and severally being general damages for imputation of criminal offence against the plaintiffs by their published libelous word.

The sum of N1, 000,000 (One Million Naira) being the cost of instituting this suit.

The plaintiffs called two witnesses while the defendants called one witness

PW1, Rev. Mark Nnadozie testified:

I am the authentic elected chairman of Ahaba-Obi Orodo by virtue of my position I have direct and first hand information about the facts of this case except where otherwise expressly stated. All facts averred to in paragraphs 1-35 of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim are the truth. The plaintiffs are bonafide Citizens of Nigeria and in particular indigenes of Ahaba Obi-Orodo of Mbaitoli Local Government Area of Imo State. The trouble started when soon after I was unanimously elected as chairman of Ahaba, and I wanted the community to depart from the old order the persons as represented by the defendants constituted themselves as a body hired to disturb the peace and serenity of the community.

It all began when I announced my plans to restore electricity back to the community and we required honest contractors to bid for the energizing of the community transformer. When I called for quotations from experienced electric contractors quotations were received by the committee set up for that and after the collection an open disclosure was made of the least bidder; whose bid was about N1.7m (One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Naira) Only. The Assembly of Ahaba Community unanimously favoured the contractor with the least quotation but the Defendants would not have anything to do with the honest selection of the contractor. After the meeting and the official selection of the contractor the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd Defendants approached me and wanted me to compromise the choice of contractor by padding the cost to N7m (Seven Million Naira). My refusal to tow this line did not go down well with them hence their resolve that, I would not enjoy peaceful reign as chairman of Ahaba Community.

The Defendants severally constituted themselves into destabilizing factors with the result that, at one time they forcefully announced to the bewilder Ahaba people that I have been impeached and have seized to be chairman of Ahaba. This action of the Defendants jointly and severally necessitated why I took out a civil action against them on behalf of Ahaba people, at the High Court of Imo State sitting at Iho. The copy of the writ of summons in pleaded. Consequently the Defendants resolute in the use of brutal force and harassment to intimidate law abiding citizens is worrisome, with the result that, they went to the length of using the police against each and every one of us. One among the series of their harassment mechanism of Innocent citizens included their letter by their lawyer addressed to Commissioner of Police Imo State. The letter is pleaded as authored by counsel of the Defendants to the Police Commissioner Imo.

The Defendants have been making the community ungovernable for me as the authentic elected chairman and because I took out personal matter against some of them in the court they decided to equally hound the plaintiffs with harassment arrest and detention via their petition to the Commissioner of Police.The persons of the plaintiffs are known to me as members of my community hence the word. “Hoodlums” used to describe them is most absurd. All the 11 plaintiffs are persons of respectable characters in Ahaba Obi-Orodo and I can vouch for their good characters hence the referral made to them as “Hoodlums” is libelous as it is Defamatory.

Cross examination

It is true I am not a party to this suit. I am here because I am the chairman of Ahaba Community. It is true I filed my deposition to buttress the claim of the plaintiff. I am here to say that the people they called thieves are not thieves. The plaintiffs told me that they were defamed. The plaintiff told me that the defendants call them thieves. The Defendants petitioned the plaintiffs on 10-5-17. On 7-5-17 I was the chairman of my village Ahaba Obionor. I am still the Chairman of Ahaba Development Zone. It is true the Ahaba Development Zone has a constitution. There is a Constitution but I do not know the year

It is the constitution that made provision for the position of House Chairman. Apart from the position of House chairman, the constitution made provision of other executive positions. The constitution made provision for president general but it was not done. Since there was no election for President General the whole community asked me to continue. As the House Chairman it is not all issues that Executive will and it will be brought to the general meeting. It depends on the nature of the matter. Any decision reached or agreed by the meeting is deemed to be the decision of the town.

PW2, Mr. Charles Akubuiro (3^rd Plaintiff) testified:

I am a civil servant. I am from Ahaba in Obiorodo Autonomous Community. I am the 3″ Plaintiff/ Applicant on record before this Honourable Court. By reason of which all facts deposed to herein, are within my personal knowledge. I have the consent of the plaintiffs on record to depose to this witness statement on Oath on their behalf. This witness statement on Oath is in support of our claim in this suit. We brought this suit against the defendants as a result of defamatory word published by them wherein they referred to us as “hoodlums” The offending paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said petition is as reproduced below.

“The peace, unity and security of Ahaba Community was breached on the 7^th day of May, 2017, by a group of ‘hoodlums” led by Kelechi Maduagwu, Chineye Nwogu, Charles Akubuiro Chimezie Akubuiro, Desmond lwuozor, Ikenna Emekoma, Amabo Ekeanyawu, Christopher Iwuala, Dominic Okorie, Eugene lwuozor and Vincent Nkemakolam. These “Hoodlums” on the aforesaid date at about 21 hour the night conspired within themselves with the intention of causing panic chaos and anarchy in the Community’ The Hoodlums who were fully armed, were after the life of the Home Chairman. The ‘hoodlums” tagged the Ahaba Community Constituted authorities as Criminals and Fraudsters”

The copy of the petition by the Defendants wherein the above libelous words were written is as attached as pleaded. As plaintiffs we are respected members of Ahaba Community of Obi do in Mbaitoli Local Government Area of Imo State. None of us have ever been convicted before in a Court of competent jurisdiction in any criminal charges. All of us are responsible men with families and means of livelihood. The libelous word published by defendants to the world at large was aimed at lowering our various high esteems in the society at large and more so for the Police to treat us as common criminals. All the plaintiffs deposed to affidavit of fact to buttress our genuineness as bonafide Citizens of Nigeria and respected members of Ahaba Community in Imo State. The document of the affidavits as deposed to by all the 11 plaintiffs as well as copies of our I.D cards, drivers licenses and other relevant document are as attached as pleaded.

The publication injured our collective good names within our Community and society at large and our reputation was equally dented by referring to us as “Hoodlums”. The paragraph 2 of the said publication of a petition was aimed at lowering our collective estimations before right thinking members of the society like the police community. The paragraph 3 of the publication of petition was intended to expose us to hatred, contempt, and ridicule and which was what we collectively suffered when the police arrested us.

The publication of the offensive word at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said petition were aimed at conveying an imputation to disparage us in our variance offices and professional callings as well as in our various trades. Apart from imputation of criminal offences the Publication which the defendants circulated within the Community of Ahaba, have injured our collective and individual financial credit. I know that libel is usually in a permanent form written or printed words. I know that libel is addressed to the sight oral or spoken words. I know that libel is actionable and that as plaintiffs we do not need to prove special damages. l know that the word Hoodlums as used to refer to us plaintiffs in the petition of the defendants attested to the Commissioner of police Imo State command is defamatory as it contains all the elements of defamation. I verily believe that the action of the Defendants Complained about in this 5uit is unjustified, unconscionable and amounted to defamation become the imputation tended to lower us the plaintiffs in the estimation of right thinking embers of our Community in particular and the Society at large. I verily believe that it will be in the interest of justice to grant the relief.

He tendered;

Letter dated 10-5-17 is admitted and marked Exhibit A

Affidavit of fact deposed to on 15-12-17 is admitted and marked Exhibit B.

The drivers licence and the identity cared of plaintiff are admitted and marked Exhibits C and C1

CROSS EXAMINATION

I and the defendants are from the same community. Before the petition that precipitated this action, I was friendly as in cordial relationship with the defendants. It was after that petition that I briefed my lawyer and prepared my statement and signed on my behalf. There was allegation against us at the police station. Yes. We went to police to react to the petition we did not express any grievances. Our chairman has already taken responsibility. Then he sounded the gong that nobody should contribute the levy for the transformer. As he has not called for any levy.

I cannot remember the particular day the said gong was sounded. But it was sounded in May. On the night that the said gong was sounded I was not with him. My community has a constitution. The Constitution of Ahaba Town made provision for officers of Ahaba Community. By the Constitution known as Ahaba Development Zone Constitution 2005 the President General is the chief executive officer and security of the tow. The Constitution makes provision for President. But as it stands now the Ahaba people has not democratically elected any president. The said Constitution of Ahaba Town is what also regulates the conduct and activities of people of Ahaba. I am not elected officer of Ahaba Town.

It is also correct that none of the plaintiffs is also an elected officer of Ahaba Town. The purported President General was not democratically elected. Just a group of cabal who buldozored into the community government. Simply because the President in the person of Bishop Mark Nnadozie budgeted N1.7million for energy or community transformer but they pressured him to pad the budget which he refused and they conducted a kangaroo impeachment and padded the budget to N7.5million. I am telling the court that these people I brought to court petitioned against me and other plaintiffs wherein they libeled against us. They wrote a libelous petition. They called meeting of the community and told them that we are hoodlums and they will even prove it in the court of law that they are hoodlums. The Constitution of your community that is known as Ahaba Development Zone 2005 made provisions for general, emergency and executive meetings.

It is not correct that any decision taken by my community in any of the meetings is deemed to be the decision of Ahaba Community. The Constitution provides inter alia that the democratically elected chairman has to call the meeting of the community before decisions is taken. The petition of 10-5-2017 in which I and other plaintiffs were claiming that we were defamed were addressed to commissioner of police. The petition was asking the Commissioner of Police to investigate my conduct and other plaintiffs’ conduct of 7-5-2017

At the conclusion of investigation, it is correct to say that none of the defendants were charged given for police false information. The investigation was inconclusive. The matter was inconclusive. Police did not proceed with investigation. We waited and waited and so had to bring this action. It is correct that the 1^st – 10^th defendants were the people who petitioned against me and other plaintiffs. The petition by 1^st & 2^nd – 10^th defendants was not brought for and on behalf of Ahaba Community. That was a group of cabal presenting themselves as executives of the community. They wrote on their own behalf and not on behalf of the community. It is correct to say that the name of the plaintiffs  as contained in  the statement of claim were a true and correct reflection of their names. As individuals and not as officers of the community.

DEFENCE

DW1: Peter Ezihe. He testified: I am the 2^nd defendant in this suit, and the incumbent home Chairman of Ahaba Development Zone and by virtue of my position I am conversant with the facts depose herein. I have the consent and authority of other co-defendants to depose to this oath. The defendants in this suit and the plaintiffs are from Ahaba in Obi-Orodo Autonomous Community and are members of Ahaba Development Zone, Ahaba in Obi Orodo Autonomous Community, Mbaitoli LG.A. of Imo State. Except the 13^th defendant, the other defendants in this suit are the constituted authorities of Ahaba town. The Ahaba town is under Obi-Orodo Autonomous Community and governed through a union known as Ahaba Development Zone (A.D.Z). As stipulated in Article 4 of Ahaba Development Zone Constitution 2005. The said constitution in Articles 18 34, 43 and 47 stipulates the administrative structures of Ahaba Development Zone, their Executives and functions.

The Defendants occupies the following positions or post in the administration of Ahaba Development Zone: The 1^st defendant is from Ekeukwu village, he is an international businessman. He is the President General of Ahaba Development Zone. The 2^nd defendant is from Umumbra village, and he is the home chairman of Ahaba Development Zone. The 3^rd defendant is from Ekeukwu village, he is an international business man. He is the most senior village head in Ahaba and in Obi-Orodo Autonomous Community in general. He is a member of Ahaba council of Chiefs, and Eze’s cabinet. He is a life patron of Ahaba Development zone and a permanent member of Ahaba Executive council and adviser. The 4^th defendant is from Umumbra village. He is the village head of Umumbra village, a member of Ahaba council of chiefs, a life patron and permanent member of Ahaba Executive council and adviser.The 5^th defendant is from Duruemezie village. He is the village head of Duruemezie village, a member of Ahaba council of chiefs, a life patron of Ahaba Development zone and permanent member of Ahaba Executive council and Adviser. The 6^th defendant is from Ekeukwu village. He is the village chairman of Ekeukwu and a member of Executive council of Ahaba Development zone. The 7^th defendant is from Umumbra village. He is the chairman of Umumbra village and a member of Executive council of Ahaba Development zone. The 8^th defendant is from Duruejiaku village. He was the village chairman of Duruejiaku at the time of the incident that led to this suit. The 9^th defendant is from Umualeze village. He is the village Chairman of Umualeze and a member of Executive council of Ahaba Development zone. The 10^th defendant is from Duruemezie Village. He is the village Chairman of Duruemezie and a member of Executive council of Ahaba Development zone. The 11^th defendant is from Duruemezie village. He is the Vice Home Chairman of Ahaba Development zone. The 13^th defendant is from Duruejiaku village. He was the Assistance Secretary of Ahaba Development Zone in the previous administration of Ahaba Development zone. The 14^th defendant is from Duruejiaku village. He is the incumbent P.R. 0 of Ahaba Development zone. The 15^th defendant is from Umualeze village. He was a former councilor, a member of Ahaba council of Chiefs, a life patron and a member of Executive council and adviser of Ahaba Development zone.

The defendants admit paragraph 1 and 2 of the statement of claim as true. The paragraph 3 of the statement of claim is false. The 1″ plaintiff is a man of idle mind who has no definite and defined source or means of livelihood. The only business that operates at the said Maduagwu’s compound is a pool office, owned and runned by William Maduagwu the 1^st plaintiff’s brother. The 1 plaintiff has no wife and no children. The paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim are true.

The defendants admit paragraph 6 of the statement of claim to the extent that the 4^th plaintiff is a photographer, married with children but has no studio at Nkwo Orodo Market. The 4^th plaintiff is a mobile photographer who goes from one school to another and ceremonies in search of patronage. The paragraph 7 of the statement of claim is true and hereby admitted. The paragraph 8 of the statement of claim is true to the extent that the 6^th plaintiff is married with children, but not a graduate. The 6^th plaintiff is a street fuel seller and never saw the walls of high institution. The 6″ plaintiff should produce his Certificate from any high institution he attended to ascertain his clam. The paragraph 9 of the statement of claim is true to the extent that the 7^th plaintiff is married with children but not chairman of any Village in Ahaba. The Ahaba town is made up of five (5) Villages, namely: Ekeukwu, Umumbra, Duruejiaku, Umualaeze, and Duruemze Village. Duruomenihe is kindred in Ekeukwu village, and one of the 5 villages of Ahaba town. The 7^th plaintiff has never served in the capacity of a chairman of Ekeukwu village since the existence of Ahaba town. The paragraphs 10 and 11 of the statement of claim are true and hereby admitted by the defendants. The paragraph 12 of the statement of claim is true to the extent that the 10^th plaintiff was married and has children but was abounded by his wife due to his behaviuor and attitude. He is also a root seller and not trado-medical Doctor as claimed. The paragraph 13 of the statement of claim is false. The 11 plaintiff is an idle and jobless man who is specialized in land speculation, selling one and the same land to different people. He is known to be a trouble maker in Ahaba and even in bad term with his family members, the Nkemakolam’s family.

The paragraph 14 of the statement of claim is false in its entirety; the people of Ahaba, under the umbrella/union of Ahaba Development zone neither conducted election in April 2016 nor elected the said Rev. Mark Nnadozie as the Chairman of Ahaba on the said date. The paragraphs, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the statement of clam are figments of imaginations and fabrications of the plaintiffs, who are in a mission of gamble.

Sometime between December 2016 and January 2017, I was elected as the home Chairman together with the 1^st and 14^th defendants who were elected as the president general, and public relation officer (P.R. 0) of Ahaba Development zone respectively, among other officers of the union. Prior to the election that brought me, the 1, and 14^th defendants into office, Ahaba town had poor and epileptic electricity power supply for decades, despite the fact that Ahaba town has a transformer that was donated to them since 2005 by the then Governor of Imo State, Chief Achike Udenwa, but none of the previous administration of Ahaba Development zone was able to energize the said transformer, to improve the electricity power supply in Ahaba town.

On my election with the 1^st and 14^th defendants, among other officers of the union into office, between December 2016 and January 2017 at Ahaba Development Zone annual general meeting, our primary objective and target as we promised the union was to ensure that Ahaba town has a relatively steady and stable power supply in line with the yearnings and aspiration of Ahaba people. That objective was immediately followed after our election into office, with series of meetings, followed with the constitution of Ahaba Development Zone electricity transformer energizing committee, and that committee was chaired by the 15^th defendant, while the 7^th defendant was the secretary.

The committee timeously completed the assignment given to them and presented our report and recommendation to Ahaba Development Zone, wherein the 14^th defendant was recommended as the right contractor for the job, based on his price and the terms and conditions of service he offered. The recommendation of Ahaba electricity transformer energizing committee was approved by Ahaba Development zone at their general meeting. Following the report and recommendation of the Ahaba electricity transformer energizing committee, and the Monetary involvement, the Ahaba Development zone deliberated and agreed to levy the sum of N2,000 (Two Thousand Naira) only on each electricity consumer in Ahaba for a start, to avoid over stressing the people, and majority number of Ahaba people complied except the plaintiffs.

Subsequently, the contractor was mobilized to start work, which he did by cutting down trees and other obstacles on the lane for the poles and the same time mounted poles. Surprisingly on the 7^th day of May, 2017 night, at about 9 to 9.30 pm, the peace, unity and security of Ahaba town were breached by the plaintiffs. I was about to go to bed, when I had the noise, the sound of machines, horns and gongs of the plaintiffs, who were patrolling through the streets of my village Umumbra, the noise and the threats by the plaintiffs created fear, panic and confusion in Ahaba town. The plaintiffs were calling on the people of Ahaba not to pay the N2,000 (Two Thousand Naira) levy agreed by Ahaba people in their general meeting, for the energizing of their transformer, as they branded us, the officers and the executive of Ahaba Development Zone as criminals, thieves, and fraudster.

The conducts and behaviours of the plaintiffs on the said 7″ May, 2017 night, was an invasion and siege of Ahaba town by the plaintiffs and their gang members. On seeing the plaintiffs and their gang members who were armed with cutlasses, bottles and sticks as they patrol through the streets of my village, calling the authorities and officers of Ahaba Development zone criminals, thieves and fraudsters and urging the people not to contribute the N2,000 (Two Thousand Naira) levy, but the same time urging those who had already paid, to go and collect their money back from those criminals and thieves, I was afraid to confront them because they were out to kill, or destroy any one that dare stand on their way or challenge them. The plaintiffs and their gang members threatened to deal with the Executives and officers of Ahaba Development Zone and more especially myself, who is the Home Chairman of the union, being the primary target of the plaintiffs that night.

The paragraph 23 of the statement of claim is admitted to the extent that Bruno Emere of Bruno Emere & Co. were briefed by the people of Ahaba to address the issue. Following the noise, threat, fear, panic and confusion created by the plaintiffs and their gang members on the 7^th May 2017 night, Ahaba Development Zone on the 8^th May 2017 called for an emergency general meeting, wherein the incident of the 7^th May 2017 night was deliberated and agreed that a lawyer should be consulted to petition the conducts of the plaintiffs and their gang members to the Commissioner of Police for investigation. While I and 9 other defendants namely: 1^st to 10^th defendants in this suit were assigned or delegated by the Ahaba Development Zone to represent the people of Ahaba in the matter.

The paragraphs 25 and 26 of the statement of claim are false and hereby vehemently opposed by the defendants. Following the approval of the petition by the commissioner of police, the investigation was assigned to scorpion unit and not anti-kidnapping unit, to investigate the conducts and behaviours of the plaintiffs, The plaintiffs were consequently invited by the scorpion unit to come and explain their conducts and what they did on the 7^th May 2016 night.

The paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the statement of claim are false and figment of imagination of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not among the elected officer or members of Executive council of Ahaba development zone as stipulated in Articles 18 and 34 of the constitution of Ahaba Development Zone.  The conducts and behaviours of the plaintiffs on the 7″ May 2016 night, created noisy, fear, panic and confusion among the people of Ahaba and breached the peace and security of Ahaba town and such conducts and behaviours are not justifiable and cannot be described as that of civilized people in a civilized society. The plaintiffs not only threatened the lives of elected officers and Executive council of Ahaba, Development Zone, but they were armed with cutlasses, sticks and bottles and were ready to demolish and destroy or dismantle any obstacle or any one that stands on their way or challenged them. The conducts and behaviours of the plaintiffs were aimed at sabotaging the developmental project bl the people of Ahaba and destabilize the society. The effect of the plaintiffs conducts and behaviours on the 7^th May 2017 night resulted and paralyzed the work and developmental project of energizing the Ababa transformer, as most of the people in Ahaba, who were yet to pay their two thousand Naira (N2,000) levies were afraid that the plaintiffs may come after them. The plaintiffs threatened the lives of Ahaba constituted authorities and more especially myself, the 2″ defendant as they branded me and the other officers of Ahaba Development Zone as criminals, thieves, and fraudsters and promised to deal with us. The plaintiffs are in a mission of gamble and therefore not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in paragraph 35 of the statement of claim, instead at the trial, the defendants shall urge the Honourable Court to dismiss the plaintiffs suit as being frivolous and gold-digging exercise and to award an in punitive cost against the plaintiffs.

He tendered: Constitution of Ahaba Exhibit K

Cross examination

In my paragraph 1 of the deposition, I said I am the incumbent chairman. My tenure has ended. Also, in my deposition in paragraph 5 a – m I identified all the plaintiff, their trade and businesses. It is then correct to say that from my personal knowledge they are responsible men of Ahaba community. In my deposition I did no refer to 10^th and 11^th in bad faith. I did not say that 10^th and 11^th are of bad behavior in my community. I did not say this because 10^th plaintiff had problem, with his wife. He behaved badly in the village. I was chairman on 10-5-2017. It is correct to say that on 10-5-2017 I was presiding over the family meeting. It is not correct that on 10-5-2017 it was that meeting I classified and branded the plaintiffs hoodlums. It was not that day on that meeting I briefed my counsel to write a petition against the plaintiff. They swore on the 9-5-2017 they summoned the community and told them that the project to be carried on they should not contribute

He committed crime by stopping community members from contribution in the project. I know Nnadozie if he is a bishop, I am not aware. He was one of the former chairmen of Ahaba. I was elected on 7-1-2017. Ahaba Community decided that a lawyer will be consulted to petition the Police against the hoodlums. It is the decision if the community. This group went about that night with dangerous weapon threatening that any person who ventures or tries to contribute should consider himself a dead person. When they are shooting everyone was hiding inside for their life. The Community took he decision. Police arrested them and cautioned them and they went to court and sue the community. It was the whole Ahaba- It is a community decision.

At the close of evince counsel filed and exchanged final written address which was adopted on 21-2-2023 and adjourned to 17-5-2023 for judgment

The plaintiffs’ counsel raised the issues for determination as:

Whether the Plaintiffs were defamed by referring and qualifying them as Hoodlums in the petition of the Defendants to the Imo police command.

If the answer is in the affirmative whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any remedies as to damages, for defaming their persons and lowering their personal status in the community of police commissioner and portraying them in the eyes of the law and public at large as, common criminals which they are not.

On issue no. 1, it is submitted that the Plaintiffs were defamed not only by the slanderous spoken words but by libelous publication which emanated from the acts and consensus of the Defendants, both the oral publication at the Ahaba general assembly meeting of 7^th May, 2017 and the publication by the way of a petition to the Commissioner of police, Imo State Command is substantive proof. See Exhibit A, the petition by the Defendants’ counsel Bruno Emere & Co. as addressed to the Commissioner of police, Imo State Command Headquarters, Owerri, Imo State captioned: “A GROUP OF HOODLUMS TERRORIZING AHABA COMMUNITY”. “THE LIFE OF THE HOME CHAIRMAN (PETER EZIHE) IN DANGER”. THE COMMUNITY PANICS AS THE GROUP HAVE THREATENED TO CAUSE CHAOS AND ANARCHY IN THE COMMUITY”.

According to the counsel, further down the body of the petition, the Defendants went ahead to libel the Plaintiffs by identifying them individually stating their names in black and white in paragraph 2 of the said petition, wherein they wrote in defamation as follows: “That the peace, unity and security of Ahaba community was breached on the 7^th of May, 2017 by a group of hoodlums led by Kelechi Chimezie Akubuilo, Desmond Iwuozor, Ikenna Emekoma, Amabo Ekeanyanwu, Christopher Iwualla, Dominic Okorie, Eugene lwuozor and Vincent kemakolam.

It is trite law that, defamation as defined is any expression that, damages the reputation of a person without lawful justification.

It is further submitted that, defamation has been held to mean false or wrong information about a person that damages the reputation of that person. Also, the act of publication of information that is false which lowers a person in the estimation of right thinking person generally. Thus Sir Percy H. Winfield defined defamation as “The publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid such a person”.               The dictionary definition of “Hoodlum” has been defined to mean a person who engages in crime and violence, a hooligan or gangster”. Thus, the word hoodlum is synonymous with hooligan, thug, tout, delinquent, vandal, ruffian, rowdy, learaway, larikiri, tough, rough, a member of a criminal gang. It is therefore trite law that, words which alleges or implies that the Plaintiffs have been guilty of a criminal offence will support an action for slander without prove of special damages. Alleging that the Plaintiffs were criminals by referring to them as hoodlums 4 is a very serious matter which the intention was to arrest and prosecute them as common criminals.

It is submitted that, in the case of Agoaka V Ejiogu (1972) 2 ECSLR 109: at a village gathering, the Defendant wrongfully accused the Plaintiff of having stolen his cocoyam. Evidence was led to show that the Plaintiff had suffered no actual damage as a result of the slander. Aniagolu J. as he then was, held that the Defendant was liable in an action for slander.

According to the counsel, in this instant case, the DWI admitted before this Honourable Court that he presided over the Ahaba community meeting where he pronounced the Plaintiffs as being hoodlums and went further to print their names by the brief to their counsel in their petition to the police. Thus, on the 7 day of May 2017, at their Ahaba community meeting, the defendants referred and called the Plaintiffs hoodlums when they know very well that, they are bonafide members of the same Ahaba community. Therefore, they know that the allegations were false and improvable; hence, the Defendants are guilty of slandering the Plaintiffs. The court is urged to hold in the favour of the Plaintiffs.

According to the counsel, it is evident from the evidence of the Plaintiffs, through PW1 and PW2 that, the Plaintiffs are bonafide citizens of Ahaba who have families and who have identities as citizens of Nigeria as exemplified in their various drivers license and voters cards as marked as Exhibit C and Cl respectively. The law is trite that, for the Plaintiff to succeed against a Defendant in an action for defamation must prove the three elements namely: That a statement is defamatory by reason of the natural meaning of the word used, or By reason of innuendo, that is, a statement which suggests something defamatory but not by direct reference, but rather by indirect reference to the Plaintiff. Innuendo is as indirect reference or indirect defamation of a person; the statement referred to him and That the statement was published. That is, it was published to at least one person other than the Plaintiff.

In this instant case, the whole elements to prove defamation has been established by the Plaintiffs namely: That the publication referred to them. See Exhibit A paragraph 2 of the petition to the police. That the statement was published, that is, it was published to at least one person other than the Plaintiff. The publication was made to the commissioner of police and in this regard a police commissioner represents a right thinking person in the society. Also, the natural meaning of the word used is not in doubt because, they represented in that libelous publication as criminals before the police, community and the Ahaba community in general.

It is submitted that the law is trite that, where a reference letter containing malicious disparaging or defamatory statements is published about the person who is subject of the reference to another person, firm, company, institution, body and so forth, the person who is the subject of the reference is entitled to sue the writer or the reference and all those who took part in its publication and repetition. Sec the case of Atoyebi v. Odudu (1990) 6 NWLR pt 157. P 384 SC.

It is submitted that, in this instant case, the Plaintiffs were able to prove by the identity cards as represented by Exhibit C and Cl that, they were no criminals and were no ‘hoodlums’. Also, it was their evidence that when the police discovered that the allegations against them were false, the case died a natural death. Therefore, the statement published by the Defendants to the police referring to the Plaintiffs as hoodlums has no truth thereon and hence the court is urged to hold so.

It is submitted that it is the law that, in this instant case, the natural meaning of the word “Hoodlum” as used in the Defendants’ petition to the Commissioner of Police is what it is and thus does not need any application of external meaning. This word used is capable of defaming the Plaintiffs and we urge the court lo hold so. Thus Lord Reid defining the natural meaning of words in lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (1964) AC 234. HL said:

“What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge has generally been called the natural and ordinary meaning of the words”.

It is also submitted that in this instant case, the Plaintiffs have proved and established the clement of defamation which is that the statement made in the petition referred to them. See paragraph 2 of the petition as marked Exhibit A. Thus, the Plaintiffs were listed by their names with that alone as a class of people whose identities are known, it then follows that the Defendants knowingly published the defamatory word against the Plaintiffs which they know was untrue. See the case of Dalumo v. Sketch Publishing Co. Ltd. (1972) AI NLR 567 where the Supreme Court held that, since the class of people referred to was so small and ascertainable, there was no doubt that the Plaintiff came within it. However, the defendants in this instant case listed the names of the Plaintiffs and classified them as ‘Iloodlums’ without minding. Thus, there is evidence and proof that the Plaintiffs are the persons defamed in this instant case

Subsequently, it has been established that the statement was published. Referred to the Exhibit A paragraph 2. In order to succeed in an action for defamation, a Plaintiff must prove that the libelous word or slanderous word has been published, or communicated to some person or persons other than the Plaintiff himself. See the case of Ejabulor v Oshall (1990) 5 NWLR pt 148. P. 1 @ 20 SC. According to the counsel, it is obvious that the Defendants intended that the Plaintiffs be treated as criminals in their publication as contained in their petition to the Commissioner of police as the third party. The court is therefore urged to hold that the Defendants are liable for the libelous publication of the defamatory word ‘hoodlums’ as used to qualify the Plaintiffs in this instant case.

On issue no. 2, it is submitted that the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages because the law is trite that, alleging the commission of a crime punishable by imprisonment or corporal punishment is actionable perse. Therefore, charging a person with a commission of crime is a serious matter which may not only expose the person to possible arrest and prosecution but seriously dent the Plaintiffs’ reputation generally and expose the person to social ostracism and financial distress. The law is that every libel is of itself a wrong in regard to which the law implies general damages. See the case of Webb v. Beavan (1883) 11 QBD 609.

It is submitted that as a general rule, slander is not actionable per se on mere publication, unless for the slanders that are an exception to this rule. However, there is a presumption that a defamatory statement is untrue. Accordingly, where a slander is actionable per se, the law will presume damages in favour of the Plaintiff. In such instance, the Plaintiff may at least recover normal damages if he established the slander but does not prove any special damages. In this instant case, we submit that, not only are the Plaintiffs entitled to general damages; they are equally entitled to special damages which their arrest by the police necessitated in loss of finances. Therefore, for the mere fact that, the Plaintiffs suffered financial losses by bailing themselves from the police custody and been looked upon as criminals and treated as one before the police formations and the community of Ahaba the act of the Defendants qualifies the Plaintiffs for damages because, their arrest and detention made them lose their reputations before the police community. Therefore, it stands to reason that the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as claimed. We urge Your Lordship to hold so in favour of the Plaintiffs and grant them their reliefs.

It is submitted tht the Court after close of evidence by the defence, gave the Defence Counsel fourteen days to file and serve the final written address on the Plaintiffs’ counsel, but did not file same until after fourteen days. Therefore, it is submitted that, Section 37 of the Evidence Act which defence relied upon does not apply in the instant case as what the passage is talking about concerning hear say evidence, does not apply in the instant case. Therefore, Section 37 was quoted out of context because, subsection (b) states that, contained or recorded in a book document or any record whatsoever, proof of which is not admissible under any provisions of the Act which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the matter stated. The PW1 and PW2 written dispositions were documents not tendered in evidence but, adopted as their various evidences.

The Defence Counsel was alleging that, the PW2 admitted during cross examination that, his counsel signed the witness deposition on his behalf. There cannot be any way the defence counsel expects this Honourable Court to believe him, for failing to exhibit from the record of court, the particular question he was referring to as having been made by the PW2. If such was to be lifted from the record or court, then, there would have been no reason for any doubt, because, in a matter of this nature, only the court’s record is quite authentic and any reference to record of proceedings which is not from court’s record remains a personal idea of the Defendants Counsel. The courts record is supreme and is the only reliable record that is believable.

According to the counsel it is settled law that, liability for the tort of defamation depends not on the intention of the defamer, but on the fact of the defamation. Hence, a person is liable for the reasonable inferences to be drawn from words he used, not whether he foresaw them or not. Relied on  South Henton Coal Co. v North Eastern News Association Ltd. (1894) 1 @ B 13S 138.

The counsel stated the law is trite that both slander and libel are actionable per se and it is the law that, you have not got to prove damages before award can be made. The word complained about by the Plaintiffs speaks for itself and Exhibit A equally speaks for itself as what is contained in the petition need no further proof, as to its defamatory nature.

Thus, in considering whether a slander imputing a crime is actionable per se, the text formulated by Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch (1936) 2 All E1237 should be followed. That is to say would the crime imputed tend to lower the Plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking member of the society generally.

The Defendant counsel admitted that, the defamatory word was a collective pronouncement by the people of Ahaba community while trying to exonerate the Defendants from liability of the defamatory word spoken and written by them. There is no other meaning that malice can be imputed or described other than the fact that, the Defendants knowing very well that, the Plaintiffs as fellow kinsmen with verified identities, can proceed to tag them ‘hoodlums’, means that, they have serious intention to endanger the Plaintiffs in a criminal charge. The imputation of crime which is punishable by imprisonment is so grave an imputation, in that, it conveys an impression of guilt. It is a strong ground and basis for belief in the guilt of the Plaintiffs. The ordinary or right thinking members of’ the Plaintiffs’ society generally will lay it upon their breast and will tend to lower their estimation and shun or avoid their company.

According to the counsel, the truth is that, the Defendants acted out of malice and therefore cannot rely on the defence of justification to have made that publication of such a defamatory word against the Plaintiffs. The publication was false as there was no proof of evidence that any of the Plaintiffs had before now been convicted of any crime.

In the same vein, the defence counsel was in agreement with our position of evidence of malice against the Plaintiffs by the Defendants, because he did state in his paragraph 5.19 0f his final address that, the PW2 established during cross examination that they have the cordial relationship with the Defendants and in spite of this alleged development, the defendants went ahead to brand them “Hoodlums”. That means, there was malice and we urge the court to hold so and discountenance the Defendants’ argument, which did not flow from the evidence given before this Honourable Court. That the Defendants, forced themselves to the governance of Ahaba cannot give them the privileged position to brand their fellow kinsmen “Hoodlums”.

In conclusion it is submitted that in the case of Sim v. Sketch (1936) 2AER 123 7 the standard prescribed for a defamatory utterance as demonstrated by Lord Atkin in that case is this “would the words used tend to lower the Plaintiff in the opinion of or the estimation of right-thinking members of the society generally”. This standard has come to be accepted in Nigerian courts and applied in many cases e.g., the case of Matain v. Daswani (1942) 8WACA 216 Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2003) FWLR (pt 182) 1873 at 1890, Edem v Orpheo (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor (2003) FWLR (pt 176) 585 @ 598.

The defamatory words written against the Plaintiffs damage have resulted from the fact that they were made to bail themselves with money from the police. This constitutes loss of finances on the part of the Plaintiffs. Also, the law is trite that, though the law does not presume damages in favour of the Plaintiffs but in Cross River State Newspaper v. Oni (1995) 26 LRCN 52 @ 77. The Supreme Court stated thus: “Defamation, spoken or written is always actionable if damage is proved, and even if it is not, the law will infer the damage needed to found an action”. i. Where the words are written or printed. ii.               Where the words spoken impute a crime punishable with imprisonment.

The law is trite that the Plaintiff also needs not prove that he has suffered injury resulting or actual damages or injury to his reputation for such damage is presumed by the law where slander is actionable per se. see the case of Cross River Stale Newspaper v. Oni (supra)

The Defendants counsel formulated issue for determination as:

Whether the plaintiffs proved deformation to entitle them to the reliefs sought

According to the counsel before delving into whether the plaintiffs proved a case of defamation against the defendants, the great question yearning for an answer is whether the evidence of PW1, PW2 and Exhibit B,C-C1 are admissible in law to prove any case against the defendants. It is submitted that both the evidence of PW1, PW2 and the Exhibit B, C-C1 tendered in this court could at best be regarded as Hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible in law. See section 37 of the Evidence Act 2011.

According to the counsel section 37 of the evidence Act 2011 provides that Hearsay means “A statement oral or written made otherwise than by witness in a proceeding or contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatsoever, proof of which not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth, of the matter stated in it. He went on to state that the PW1 during cross examination on the 15/11/2018 was asked and he stated thus: Q:”you filed your deposition on oath after the plaintiffs told you that they were defamed”.

Ans: I am here to say that the people they called thieves are not thieves

Q:           Did the plaintiffs tell you that they were defamed or that the defendants called them thieves

Ans: Yes, it is correct.

From the evidence of PW1; it is quite obvious and crystal clear that the PW1 was in court to narrate what the plaintiffs told him, as the PW1 neither saw nor read Exhibit A, being the Defendants petition to commissioner of police. According to the Counsel, the PW2 on the other hand during cross-examination of 18/5/2019 was asked and stated thus: Q: “It was after that petition, that you briefed your lawyer who prepared your statement on Oath of 7/12/2018, signed same and filed on your behalf”.

Ans: Yes

The counsel posited that the implication of said admission of PW2 is that the PW2 is neither the maker of the statement the PW2 adopted on the 7/12/2018 nor was he the one that signed his purported statement on oath of 7/12/2018 and therefore not admissible in law.

Furthermore, the provisions of Order 3 Rules 2 (1) (C) of Imo State Civil Procedure Rules 2017 Provides that all civil proceedings commenced by writ of summons shall be accompanied by, among others, written statements on oath of the witnesses, the rules did not state a written statement on oath of witnesses deposed, by his lawyer on his behalf. It is therefore submitted that the word “shall” used in the provision of this rule is a mandatory provision which is non compliance is a foundational defect on the evidence of the plaintiff.

It is submitted that when the PW2 who was on oath before this court adopted the statement of 7/12/2018 as is evidence in this matter, which turned out to be untrue, false and equally perjury. The implication is that the PW2 is not a credible witness and therefore not entitled to be believed by this court. In the same vein my Lord, the Exhibits B and C-C1 which are Affidavit of facts tendered in this court through the PW2 are also qualified as a hearsay evidence and inadmissible in law as the makers of those affidavit of facts were not called as witness so as to be cross-examined on the said documents.

On the issue of whether the plaintiffs have proved defamation against the defendants, it is submitted that the plaintiffs have not proved defamation to entitle them to the reliefs sought. According to the counsel, it is a settled principle of law that in a civil matter, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, who will fail if he fails to prove it. SEE THE CASE OF WEST AFRICAN COTTON LTD ANO ANOR VS IBRAHIM HARUNNA (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 418) PG 1842 PARA 1947 RATIO 2. The court of appeal Kaduna Division held that “He who assert must prove his assertion by credible evidence and where he fails to prove, his claims must fail”. The onus is on the plaintiff in an action for liable to show that the published words complained were made out of malice, false and convey a defamatory imputation. SEE THE CASE Of ILOBACHIE VS ILOBACHIE (2005) 5 KLR (PT 197) AT PG 1341 PARA F-G. The defendants in this suit are the elected Executive of Ahaba Community otherwise known as Ahaba Development Zone, whose duty is to ensure peace, security, protection of life and property of the people of the community and to create enabling environment for the development of the community.

The PW2 during his cross-examination on the 16/5/2019 admitted in his evidence. that the petition of 10/52017 by the defendants was for the commissioner of the police to investigate the plaintiffs’ actions and conducts of 7/5/2017 night. Therefore, submit that the petition was made in the aid for justice, as it is the public duty of everyone who knows or reasonably believes that a crime has been committed to assist in the discovery of the wrongdoer. It is important to note that the decision to petition the plaintiffs to commissioner of police to investigate the plaintiffs conduct of 7/5/2017 was taken by the people of Ahaba Community in their emergency general meeting held on 8/5/2017.

It is further submitted that in a case of defamation, the cardinal points the plaintiffs must prove, is that the defendant acted in malice and that the words used by the defendants are false. SEE CHIEF NYA EDIM EKONG VS CHIEF ASUQUO E. OTOP & 3 OROS (2014) 6 KLR (PT 350) PG 2485; EKONG VS OTOP (2014) 6 KLR PG 2475 PARA F-G; ONYEJIKE VS ANYASOR (1992) 1 NWLR 437; DIN VS AFRICAN NEWSPAPE LTD. (1990) 2 NWLR PART (137) 392; DUMBA VS IDEOGBORE 9 (1983) 1 SCNLR 29.

However, in the instant case, the PW2 admitted during his cross-examination on 16/5/2019, that before the petition that precipitated the action in court, he was having friendly and cordial relationship with the defendants. It is trite law that facts admitted need no further proof. SEE THE CASE OF ONWHOSA VS ODIUZO (1989) 1 NWLR (PT.586)173 RATIO 5 AT PAGE 183 PARAGRAPH A. AYOKE VS BELLO (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 189) 36 RATIO 3 AT PAGE SO PARAGRAPH 1. The PW1 during cross-examination on 13/12/2018 admitted that any decision reached or agreed in their general meeting is deemed to be decision of the town. It is trite law that facts admitted need no further proof. SEE ONWHOSA VS ODILIZO (SUPRA); AYOKE VS BELLO (SUPRA)

It is submitted that the PW1 admission goes to buttress and support the DW1 evidence during his cross-examination, when he stated that the decision to write the petition against the plaintiffs was not that of the defendants on record but the decision of entire Ahaba people at their general meeting of 8/5/2017. The DW1 in his evidence during cross-examination also stated that the plaintiffs on the said 7/5/2017 were armed with cutlass, bottles, axe and other dangerous weapons, and when he was asked by the plaintiffs’ counsel whether any person was wounded, is answer was that people ran away.

This piece of evidence was never controverted by the plaintiffs. It is trite law that uncontroverted and admitted facts need no further prove. SEE PAN ATLANTIC SHIPPING, AND TRANSPORT AGENCIES LTD VS ABAYOMI BABA TUNDE (2007) LPELR 4826(CA); SEE OKULA YE VS ADESANYA (2014) 6 KLR {PT 350} PG 1261, Where VIVOUR JSC held that “cross-examination is to test the credibility of testimony given in evidence in Chief. Evidence is reliable and compelling and must be acted on, when it goes through cross-examination and remains reliable”. In the case of PROVOST L.S.C.E. VS EDUM P. (2004) 2 KLR (PT 173) It was held that where evidence is given by a party was not challenged by the opposite party; it is always opened to the court to act on such evidence before it. The court is urged to so hold in the instant case. The PW2 also admitted in his evidence during cross-examination of 16/5/2019, when he was asked thus: Que “The petition to commissioner of police was after you and the other co-plaintiffs expressed your grievances at the community on 7/5/2017 night”.

Ans:       Yes

It is submitted that in view of various admissions made by the PW2 during cross-examination, it is crystal clear and obvious that the plaintiffs’ actions and conducts on the 7/5/2017 cannot be classified otherwise than that of “Hoodlums” the defendants are therefore justified with their petition to commissioner of police. Assuming without conceding that the defendants’ petition to commissioner of police on 10/5/2017 contained an iota of libelous defamation, the defence of justification and qualified privilege will all the same avail the defendants.

The word Hoodlum from the Oxford Dictionary means “violent and noisy young man. The police is saddled with the responsibility and empowered for the prevention and detection of crime, apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged. Thus when a crime is imputed as was in the instant case, of the defendants compliant, the police has right to invite the suspect for purpose of investigating the allegation. SEE SECTION OF POLICE ACT. SEE ALSO THE CASE OF KOLO & ANOR VS DAWARI AND ORS (2018) LPELR 44268; SEE BOLADE OLUTUDE VS ADAMS HAMZA (2016) LPELR 26047 (CA)

According to the counsel, the PW2 during cross-examination on 7/12/2018 also admitted that the constitution of Ahaba community otherwise called Ahaba Development Zone constitution 2005 is what regulates the conduct and actions of the people. He further admitted that the President General, office which the 1^st Defendant on record holds is the Chief Security Officer of the Community.

The Exhibit A, being the petition of 10/5/2017 clearly showed that the defendants are the elected officers of Ahaba Development Zone, and occupied one positions or the other in the community as clearly stated in Exhibit A. Any information or complaint made or given to the police or to those interested in investigating the matter will in the interest of society be privilege. See MARCUS UKAEGBU & ORS VS MARK NWOKOLO {2009) ALL FWLR {PT 466) PG 186 @ 1855- 1856 RATIO 5 the supreme court of Nigeria held thus: A plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of defence SEE ALSO TUKURU VS SABI{2013) KLR (PT.326) 438.

It is submitted that where the evidence of the plaintiffs as in the instant case is unsatisfactory, judgment should be in favour of the defendants on the ground that it is the plaintiff who seeks relief but has failed to proof that he is entitled to what he claims.  It is a settled law held in a plethora of authority that a qualified privilege is a defence, where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social or moral. To make it to the person whom it was made and the person to whom it was made has a correspondent interest or duty to receive it. Referred to AKOMOLAFE VS GUARDIAN PRESS LTD (2010) 1 KLR (PT 275) PG 88 PARA F-G. SEE ALSO TOOGOOD VS SPYING (1834) 1 CM & R Reported in Nigerian Law of Torts by Kodilenye & Aloku.

It is submitted that in the case of EKONG VS OTOP (SUPRA) the court held that’ it is not every statement which is made and which annoys a person that is the defamatory. The defendants’ petition of 10/5/2017 to commissioner of police to investigate the actions and conducts of the plaintiffs on 7/5/2017 night is not defamatory.

It is stated in conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved any case of defamation against the defendants and the court is urged to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with a litigation cost of N1,000,000 (0ne Million Naira) against the plaintiffs.

RESOLUTION OF MATTER:

I have considered the evidence before me as well as the written submission of the counsel. I am of the view that the issue that calls for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiffs have proved their case as to entitle them to the relief sought.”

The onus on the plaintiff in an action for libel is to prove that the defendant:- (i) published in permanent form a Statement (ii) that the statement referred to him; (iii) that the statement was defamatory of him in the sense that; (iv) it lowered him in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society; or (v) it exposed him to hatred, ridicule or contempt; or (vi) it injured his reputation in his office, trade or profession; or (vii) it injured his financial credit. In actions involving libel, it is settled law that the question whether the words complained of are, in fact, defamatory of the Plaintiff, is a matter for the jury and it is for the Judge to decide on the evidence adduced in support of the complaint, whether they are capable of referring to the Plaintiff as well as capable of conveying defamatory meaning in the minds of reasonable persons in the circumstances of the particular case”. PER WALI, JSC “In deciding whether words are capable of conveying defamatory meaning, the court will reject that meaning which can only emerge as…The law is that to found action in libel the alleged libelous statement must not only be false, but must also be defamatory of the plaintiff.

The tort of defamation is also known as libel. When the defamatory words are communicated orally, it is slander and when they are reduced into writing, permanent form, it is referred to as libel. What is common to both is that the defamatory words must have been published to a third party, who by law, was not entitled or privileged to hear or receive the offending words which are damaging to the reputation of the Claimant. A statement is said to be defamatory where, if published of and concerning a person is calculated to lowering him in the estimation of right-thinking men or cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business. Every person has a right to the protection of his good name, reputation and the estimation which he stands in the society of his fellow citizens. Thus, whoever publishes anything injurious to that good name, or reputation…To determine whether or not a word is defamatory, there is need to consider what meaning it conveys to the ordinary person, whether a reasonable man would likely understand it in a libelous sense.

The onus is squarely on the Plaintiffs to establish that their reputation was affected as a result of the publication, the reputation is that which a 3rd party held of the Appellant and not that which he held of himself. Consequently, there must be.

There are 11 plaintiffs in this action. Where several persons are jointly injured by a libel or slander, they may all join as co-plaintiffs in one action. The law is well settled that where one or more defendants published defamatory words of two or more plaintiffs in the same libel or slander, and common questions of law or fact would arise for the determination of the court if separate actions were brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the plaintiffs could be joined in one action as their rights to relief arise out of the same publication.

BASSEY EDEM VS ORPHEO NIGERIA LIMITED (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 39143,(2003) LPELR-1006(SC); CHIEF NYA EDIM EKONG V. CHIEF ASUQUO E. OTOP & ORS (2014) LPELR-23022(SC);  GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD & ANOR V. REV PASTOR C. I. AJEH (2011) LPELR-1343(SC), HELD IN ACCESS BANK PLC V. AJAYI (2018) LPELR-43813 AT PP. 22-28, PARAS. C-F

There are two complaints of the Plaintiffs. The first is the letter which a counsel on the instruction of the Defendants wrote to the Nigeria Police. The second is the slander aspect of it the pronouncement/utterance s made b the Defendants at the fami meeting.

According to the PW1:

“Consequently the Defendants resolute in the use of brutal force and harassment to intimidate law abiding citizens is worrisome, with the result that, they went to the length of using the police against each and every one of us. One among the series of their harassment mechanism of Innocent citizens included their letter by their lawyer addressed to Commissioner of Police Imo State. The letter is pleaded as authored by counsel of the Defendants to the Police Commissioner Imo”.

PW2 in his evidence stated:

“We brought this suit against the defendants as a result of defamatory word published by them wherein they referred to us as “hoodlums” The offending paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said petition is as reproduced below.

“The peace, unity and security of Ahaba Community was breached on the 7^th day of May, 2017, by a group of ‘hoodlums” led by Kelechi Maduagwu, Chineye Nwogu, Charles Akubuiro Chimezie Akubuiro, Desmond lwuozor, Ikenna Emekoma, Amabo Ekeanyawu, Christoper Iwuala, Dominic Okorie, Eugene lwuozor and Vincent Nkemakolam.

These “Hoodlums” on the aforesaid date at about 21 hour the night conspired within themselves with the intention of causing panic chaos and anarchy in the Community’

The Hoodlums who were fully armed, were after the life of the Home Chairman. The ‘hoodlums” tagged the Ahaba Community Constituted authorities as Criminals and Fraudsters”

Apart from imputation of criminal offences the Publication which the defendants circulated within the Community of Ahaba, have injured our collective and individual financial credit

Under cross examination

I am telling the court that these people I brought to court petitioned against me and other plaintiffs wherein they libeled against us. They wrote a libelous petition. They called meeting of the community and told them that we are hoodlums and they will even prove it in the court of law that they are hoodlums. The petition of 10-5-2017 in which I and other plaintiffs were claiming that we were defamed were addressed to commissioner of police. The petition was asking the Commissioner of Police to investigate my conduct and other plaintiffs’ conduct of 7-5-2017. At the conclusion of investigation, it is correct to say that none of the defendants were charged given for police false information. The investigation was inconclusive. The matter was inconclusive. Police did not proceed with investigation. We waited and waited and so had to bring this action

DW1 stated:

The paragraph 23 of the statement of claim is admitted to the extent that Bruno Emere of Bruno Emere & Co., were briefed by the people of Ahaba to address the issue. Following the noise, threat, fear, panic and confusion created by the plaintiffs and their gang members on the 7^th May 2017 night, Ahaba Development Zone on the 8^th May 2017 called for an emergency general meeting, wherein the incident of the 7^th May 2017 night was deliberated and agreed that a lawyer should be consulted to petition the conducts of the plaintiffs and their gang members to the Commissioner of Police for investigation

The counsel for the Plaintiff submitted:

That the Plaintiffs were defamed not only by the slanderous spoken words but by libelous publication which emanated from the acts and consensus of the Defendants, both the oral publication at the Ahaba general assembly meeting of 7^th May, 2017 and the publication by the way of a petition to the Commissioner of police, Imo State Command is substantive proof

It was as a result of this that, the defendants forcefully took over the governance of Ababa community and in their effort to discredit the Plaintiffs came to the open Assembly of Ahaba community and broadcasted to the whole people that, the Plaintiffs were criminals and to further reinstate their falsehood against the Plaintiffs, went ahead and briefed their lawyer who published the libelous word against the Plaintiffs and referred to them as “hoodlums”. The petition by the Defendants as written by their counsel to the police commissioner which was admitted as Exhibit A speaks for itself.

That it was not a mere publication, but a libelous act which the Defendants intended that the police should arrest and take action against the Plaintiffs by investigating, trying and imprisoning them as criminals. Thus, the aim by the Defendants was to bring the Plaintiffs to disrepute by tagging them as common criminals in the face of law and within the society of the police institution.

Now it is not contested that the publication to the Police. The defendants admitted that the instructed a lawyer to right to the Police. Is such publication to the Police libelous? Police is a public institution. It is the responsibility of the police to receive complaint made to them and decide what to do with such report.

The complaint that there was a libel relates to or involves the police, it is the written complaint sent to the Police by the the counsel to the Defendants. In UDOFIA & ANOR V. OKON & ORS (2018) LPELR-46154(CA) it is stated:

The poser here was answered in the case of OSAKWE VS. UBN (2009) LPELR-8205 (CA) in the following words: “In the instant appeal, the writing of a report by the Respondent followed a report made by Appellant indeed, a request by the appellant to the Police to investigate a complaint of fraud against the Bank the Respondent. Can it therefore be said correctly that the Respondent does not have a duty to defend itself of allegation of fraud alleged by the Appellant against it, when the appellant made complaint to Police against the Bank by stating its own side of the complaint of Appellant against itself to the Police can it be said that the Police the 3rd party have no duty and interest to receive the response of the Bank to the charge of the Appellant, surely, My Lords, the Respondent – The Bank is entitled to respond and the Police have a duty to receive the response of the Respondent. See SPEIGHT VS. GOSNEY (1891) 60 Law Journal OB. Where by contrast it was ruled that there was publication of the words published because the receiver of the words in writing had a duty or interest to receive it. However, where no duty exist, there would be no publication, and the claim in libel will fail because of the defence of absolute privilege. See RONDEL VS. WORSLEY (1969) AIC, 141 @ 269. ” The 1st Respondent is within his right to report a crime. The 2nd-4th Respondents were merely exercising statutory duty and under the Constitution to receive complaints about crime and investigate same. ” There was nothing unreasonable in what the Respondents did, the 1st Respondent was on a legitimate course to recover his money allegedly stolen. The 2nd-4th Respondents were also acting within their right in investigating the complaint. In FAJEMIROKUN VS. COMMERCIAL BANK NIG. LTD. (2009) SC/336/2002, the Supreme Court per Ogebe, JSC held: “Generally it is the duty of citizens of this country to report cases of commission of crime to the Police for their investigation and what happens after such report is entirely the responsibility of the Police. The citizens cannot be held culpable for doing their civic duty unless it is shown that it is done mala-fide.” See; OWOMERO VS. FLOUR MILLS (NIG.) LTD. (1995) 9 NWLR (PT. 421) PG. 622, EZEADUKWA VS. MADUKA (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 518) PG. 635.” Therefore a written complaint to the police alleging the commission of a crime cannot amount to libel. There is a constitutional right and civic duty for a citizen of this country to report crime and statutorily a duty on the police to receive such complaint and take necessary steps to investigate. There cannot be a liability for doing so. The claim for libel by the 1st Respondent and the Police fails.”  Per NIMPAR ,J.C.A (Pp. 31-35 paras. A-A)

in PROJECT ARCADE LTD & ANOR V. IGP & ORS (2022) LPELR – 59127 CA it is stated:

“The law is well defined on this, that every citizen has a right to make or lodge honest complaint with the Police or any law enforcement agency against any wrongdoing or crime, committed by the accused/suspect and the person lodging the complaint is not liable for the wrong committed by the police (law enforcement agency) in the course of handling the complaint, while exercising their (Police) Independent decision/judgment in the handling of the complaint. See OSTL Vs Balogun (2012) LPELR-9218 CA, (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 677) 633; (2012) 38 WRW 143 which held: any complaints made or information given to those interested in investigating a matter (the police) will, in the interest of the society be privileged, once there is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. In the case of Fajemirokun vs Commercial Bank (Credia Lynnnais) Nig Ltd (2009) 5 NWLR (pt.1135) 558 at 600, it was held: generally, it is the duty of citizens of the country to report cases of commission of crime to the Police for their investigation and what happens after such report is entirely the responsibility of the Police. The citizen cannot be held culpable for doing their duties, unless it is shown that it is done malafide in the case of Duru Vs Nwangwu (2006) 5 SCNJ 394 at 402, the Supreme Court held: it is settled law, that where an individual has lodged the facts of his complaint to the Police, as in this case, by way of petition, and the Police have there-upon, on their own proceeded to carry out arrest and detention, then the act of imprisonment is that of the Police. See also PGSS Ikachi vs Igbudu (2005) 12 NWLR (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt.940) 543 at 574. Of course, there is a proviso to the above principle. Where the complaint was lodged falsely against the victim or the complainant procured the Police to harass and attack the victim, for ulterior motives, or over a purely civil matter, with the intent of using the police or law enforcement agency to settle private scores, the complainant cannot wash off his hands from the evil visited on the victim of the malicious complaints. The authorities on this are replete, see the case of OSIL Vs Balogun (supra), Ogbonna Vs Ogbonna (2014) 23 WRN 48; (2014) LPELR-22308 (CA), Agbakoba Vs SSS (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.351) 475, Udeagha Vs Nwogwugwu (2013) LPELR-21819 CA.” Per BAYERO ,J.C.A   (Pp. 26-28 paras. B-B)

It is obvious that the PW1 did not read the said petition and it was not copied to him by the Defendants. The report to the police cannot be the basis for action in libel

The plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants came to the open assembly of Ahaba community and broadcasted to the whole people that the Plaintiffs were criminals. The Plaintiff did not call any witness, a neutral or third party, who was present at the meeting and heard the broadcast.

This witness (third party) is expected to relay the impact of this broadcast on him as it relates to each of the individuals. Each of the Plaintiffs as long as libel is concerned is standing alone. Individual reputation differs and the standing of a person in the view of the general public differs. Reputation is the general opinion or estimation that people have about someone or something. It’s a measure of how much respect, admiration, or trust a person or entity has earned in a particular social group or community.

see Daniel Threlfall. https://blog.reputationx.com/whats-reputation.

Is it possible for one person to have the same general opinion for eleven different individuals? In my view though the persons who felt defamed can bring one action, there will be need for the third party to who it was published to testify as to how it affected his regard to and for each and every one of the Plaintiffs.

Defamation per se still applies, in which actual damages are assumed and need not be proven in the following situations: Allegations that harm a person’s trade, profession or professional standing; Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; Allegations of criminal activity.

The general practice in relation to evidence to be led in civil defamation action is that the Claimant must lead evidence -in addition to proving the elements of defamation – through a third party showing the false publication and consequential effect of the publication on a third party. In the case of IWUEKE V IBC [2005] 17 NWLR (PT. 955) 447 AT 482 the court held that:

“For a plaintiff to succeed in libel there must be proof by evidence of a third party of the effect of alleged publication on him, i.e. the reaction of a third party to the publication. Afterwards libel contains in the publication by the respondent, by means of printing, writing, pictures or the like signs of a matter defamatory to the plaintiff.”

In the case of AROMOLARAN v. AGORO (2015) All FWLR (Pt.766) 574, (2014) LPELR-24037(SC) at 46-47, paras F-D, the Supreme Court, PER PETER-ODILI JSC, held:

“… the natural conclusion is that a claim in libel cannot be established without the offending words having been communicated to a third party. That is the basic ingredient of defamation as publication to a third party is of the very essence. In this I seek refuge in the case of IWUEKE v IBC [2005] 17 NWLR (PT 955) 447 at 482 wherein this court held thus: “For a plaintiff to succeed in libel there must be proof by evidence of a third party of the effect of alleged publication on him, i.e. the reaction of a third party to the publication. Afterwards libel contains in the publication by the respondent, by means of printing, writing, pictures or the like signs of a matter defamatory to the plaintiff.”

Common to both slander and libel is that the defamatory words must have been published to a 3^rd party, who by law, was not entitled or privileged to hear or receive the offending words as they are damaging to the Claimant’s reputation

The defendants counsel submitted:

From the evidence of PW1; it is quite obvious and crystal clear that the PW1 was in court to narrate what the plaintiffs told him, as the PW1 neither saw nor read Exhibit A, being the Defendants petition to commissioner of police.

And under cross examination the PW1:

“The plaintiffs told me that they were defamed. The plaintiff told me that the defendants call them thieves”

Defamation is not all about what a person thinks about himself or herself. It is for this reason that a private mail delivered to a person cannot amount to defamation irrespective of the falsity of the content.  The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558 (1976) defines an utterance as defamatory “if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from dealing with him.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines defamation as: “An intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another’s reputation or good name.”

The Plaintiffs complained about the use of the word ‘hoodlum’ to describe them. A hoodlum is a thug, usually in a group of misfits who are associated with crime or theft. The earliest reference to the word “hoodlum” was in the December 14, 1866, San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin after the Hoodlum Band was arrested on December 13, 1866.[1] Members of the gang were sentenced to the Industrial School for stealing clothes. The gang used many keys to enter hotel rooms and boarding houses. On December 14, 1866, Lazarus Moses was arrested for selling clothes stolen by the Hoodlum Band. Moses was fined $300. Moses’s nickname was Fagin.[2] The public read about the acts of the Hoodlum Band, and the word hoodlum became a synonym for a young thug. see

https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/hoodlum

The word “hoodlum” has been found to be defamatory in situation and not in some. The word “Hoodlum”is not necessarily a defamatory word. Defamation is defined as a false statement of fact that harms a person’s reputation, and the determination of whether a statement is defamatory depends on the context in which it is used. For example, in the case of Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984), the court held that calling a professor a “Marxist hoodlum” was not defamatory because it was an opinion and not a false statement of fact. Therefore, whether or not the word “hoodlum” is defamatory depends on the context in which it is used

The word “hoodlum” has been found to be defamatory in several cases. In the case of Bose v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1972), the court held that the use of the term “hoodlum” was defamatory and constituted libel per se. In the case of Johnson v. K-Mart Corp., 585 F. Supp. 1459 (N.D. Ill. 1984), the court held that the use of the term “hoodlum” was defamatory and constituted libel per se. In addition, in the case of Smith v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 645 F. Supp. 812 (D. Md. 1986), the court held that the use of the term “hoodlum” was defamatory and constituted libel per se.

The most important thing is that there is no publication of the offensive words to third party that has no legal duty to receive such a publication. There is no evidence of a third party who read or heard the words so as to shown if there is a dint in the reputation of the Plaintiffs. In the instant case even if the word “hoodlum” is interpreted as a defamatory word to describe a person with, it has not been shown it was communicated to any other party to harm the reputation of the Plaintiffs.

In conclusion I hold that the Plaintiffs have not proved their case. Same is accordingly dismissed.

I so hold.

 

I.M.Njaka

Judge

25-5-2023

Appearance

S.I. Azuama Esq., with J.U Alaibe Esq., for plaintiff

BO Emere Esq., for the Defendants