AWOKE OWATA & ORS VS UCHANCHI ANYIGOR & ORS
July 10, 2025ATTORNEY GENERAL KWARA STATE & ORS VS RAIMI OLAWALE
July 10, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1993) Legalpedia (SC) 11244
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 29, 1993
Suit Number: SC. 279/1990
CORAM
OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
AYOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF EMMANUEL OGUNBADEJO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was a vacancy in the Idowa Chieftancy and the plaintiff/respondent was nominated by the Agbonmagbe Ruling House to fill the vacancy. The kingmakers of which defendant/appellant is the head of, met and made a recommendation to the Governor of Ogun State. During the pendency of a fact finding administrative panel set up by the State to look into the dispute that arose as a result of the nomination, the defendant produced a letter of complaint to the panel which was accepted but which the plaintiff complained that it contained libellous materials. The High Court found for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal dismissed the suit
HELD
APPEAL ALLOWED
ISSUES
Whether or not the report of the administrative panel was admissible in evidence and whether Ex. A 119 could be held to constitute proof of the alleged libel.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT COMPLAINED OF IN A CASE OF LIBEL
“This important rule obliging the plaintiff to produce and tender the whole of the original document complained of can only be relaxed in three situations. The first is where secondary evidence is admissible and the plaintiff has laid the proper foundations and taken the necessary steps for admission of such secondary evidence. The second is where the document in question is shown to be in the possession of the defendant or his solicitor and the plaintiff has served upon them a proper notice or subpoena duces tecum but they have failed to produce it. The last is where it has been shown that the libel is contained in a document or in such a form which it is physically impossible or highly inconvenient to produce same in court” PER NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC
ONUS ON THE PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT COMPLAINED OF IN A CASE OF LIBEL
“The first duty of a plaintiff who comes to court in a case of libel contained in a document is, subject to recognized exceptions, to produce and tender the whole of the original document complained of as well as any connected documents which are capable of throwing any light on the meaning of the words complained of, to be read and construed by the court. This is a duty which the plaintiff owes to the defendant and the court.” PER NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC.
CASES CITED
Plato Films v. Speidel (1961) A.C. 1126Johnson v. Hudson (1836) 7A. and E. 233n, 234nRainy v. Bravo (1872) L.R. 4 P.C. 287Doe & Phillips v. Morris (1835) 3A and E.4Owner v. Beehive (1914) 1 K.B. 105
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
