PROPHET MALIM SHERIFF KAJOLA VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
August 15, 2025ALHAJI IMMAM N. ABUBAKRI & ORS & ORS VS ABUDU SMITH & ORS
August 15, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1973) Legalpedia (SC) 11111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Wed Jun 27, 1973
Suit Number: SC. 280/1971
CORAM
COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BABALAKIN,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF S.B. BAKAREWEST AFRICAN PILOT LTD APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff (Respondent) alleged that the Defendant (Appellants) defamed him in that they falsely and maliciously printed and published in a newspaper words that questioned his integrity.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that there was no proof of express malice in the publication.
ISSUES
Whether there was no evidence to justify the finding of malice made by the learned trial Judge
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ELEMENTS FOR AN ACTION FOR DEFAMATION
“In an action for defamation it is usual to allege in the statement of claim that the words were printed and published “falsely and maliciously.” If the publication is shown to be false, malice is inferred by operation of law; it is enough to show that the words complained of, are completely false.” Per IBEKWE, AG. JSC
MALICE AND DEFAMATION
“The law in its wisdom insists that words which are capable of leaving a stain on the reputation of another should not, in the absence of lawful excuse, be uttered or published of and concerning a person. Where defamatory words are published without lawful excuse, the law conclusively presumes that the defendant is motivated by what is often described as malice in law; accordingly, the plaintiff is usually not required to give particulars of the facts on which he seeks to rely in support of the allegation that the words were published “maliciously.” Per IBEKWE, AG. JSC
CASES CITED
1. Dickson v. Earl of Wilton (1959) 1 F. & F. 419
2. Dawson v. Dover and County Chronicle Limited (1913) 108 L.T. 481 at p.484
3. Clark v. Molyneux (1877) 3 Q.B.D. 237
STATUTES REFERRED TO
