CORAM
KAZEEM
NNAMANI
KARIBI-WHYTE
ANIAGOLU
KAWU
PARTIES
FRED EGBE
APPELLANTS
THE HON. JUSTICE J.A. ADEFARASIN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant sued the respondent for slander and damages suffered as a result of the slander of the appellant by the respondent.
HELD
The trial Court held that the two reasons given by the Appellant why time could not run against him, and his action could not be statute-barred, cannot apply and must be rejected. The action was clearly caught by section 10 of the Limitation law Cap. 70 Laws of Lagos State 1973 and, therefore, was statute-barred.
ISSUES
Whether the action was statute barred
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ON WHETHER DAMAGE MUST BE PROVED FOR AN ACTION IN SLANDER TO SUCCEED
‘Indeed, it could not in law say so because slander actionable per se does not require damage to be proved in order to ground the action. It is actionable without proof of special damage’ ANIAGOLU, JSC
CASES CITED
1. PHILIPPS V. PHILIPPS And Other (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 127 at 134.
2. BERDAN v. GREENWOOD (1878), Ex. D. 251 at 255.
3. RE MORGAN, (1887) 35 Ch.D 492 at 496,
4. Turburville and Another V. West Ham Corporation (1950) 2 K.B.D. 208.
5. The Darley Main Collier Company v. Mitchell (1 886) 11 A.C. 127
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Limitation Law Cap. 70 Laws of Lagos State 19732. High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules Cap 52 Vol.111 Laws of the Lagos State of Nigeria