Legalpedia Citation: (2014-11) Legalpedia (SC) 74138
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Nov 28, 2014
Suit Number: SC. 264/2003
CORAM
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
MARY UKAEGO PETER – ODILI JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
OBA GABRIEL ADEKUNLE AROMOLARAN(OWA OBOKUN OF IJESHA LAND) APPELLANTS
DR. (REV.) ROLAND OLAPADE AGORO
DEFENDANTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Defendant/Appellant wrote a letter to the then Military Governor of Oyo State stating therein that the Plaintiff/Respondent forged his academic certificate as the said Plaintiff/Respondent did not attend any university anywhere in the world. Irked by the above publication, the Plaintiff/Respondent instituted an action against the Defendant/Appellant at the Oyo State High Court claiming damages in libel against the Defendant/Appellant. The Defendant/Appellant denied the authorship of the letter but the Trial Court admitted an uncertified copy of the said letter in evidence and entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Defendant/Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal where the Court held that an uncertified public document was inadmissible in evidence but upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether the judgment of the court of Appeal can be allowed to stand in the face of the obvious conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ARAKA VS EGBUE reported in (2003) 17 N.W.L.R. Part 843 and other decided cases where it has been held that only certified copy of a public document is admissible as secondary evidence as provided for by section 97 (2) of Evidence Act of 1990. Covers Grounds 1, 2, & 3.?
2. Whether the Court of Appeal is not in error by not allowing an expert to determine the genuineness of the signature on the two documents as required by section 100 of the Evidences Act instead of resorting to a telephone directory which is inconclusive and the authenticity of the document is in the issue. Covers grounds 4, 5, and 6. Whether the Lower Court was in error when it affirmed the hasty proceedings of the trial Court. Cover ground 7 ?
3. Whether the Lower Court was right in holding that Exhibit P7, and uncertified photocopy of a public document, was admissible in evidence and based its decision on the document Covers grounds 8, 10, 11?
4. Whether the Lower Court was right in upholding the judgment of the Trial Court finding the Appellant liable in damages for libel notwithstanding the absence before the Court of the very document which they held could alone found action in defamation. Cover Ground 9?
5. Whether on the materials on the record of appeal the Lower Court was right in confirming the damages of N2, 500,000 awarded by the trial Court. Covers Ground 12?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – DUTY OF THE COURT IS TO INTERPRET THE WORDS AS CONTAINED IN THE STATUTE AND NOT TO EMBARK ON A VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY IN THE COURSE OF INTERPRETATION
“I must say that the duty of the court is to interpret the words contained in the statute and not to go outside the clear words in searching of an interpretation which is convenient to the court or to the parties in the process of interpretation. The court will not embark on a voyage of discovery. Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, as in this case. This court will follow literal rule of interpretation where the provision of the statute is clear and no more. In the case of Adewunmi V. A. G. Ekiti State (2002) 2NWLR (pt. 751)474 WALl JSC” PER GALADIMA JSC
LITERAL RULE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – COURT MUST GIVE ORDINARY WORDS IN A STATUTE THEIR NATURAL AND ONLY RESORT TO OTHER CANNONS OF INTERPRETATION WHEN THERE IS AMBIGUITY
“The literal rule of interpretation of statutes is that ordinary words must be given their natural and ordinary meaning it is only when there is doubt or ambiguity that recourse may be had to other cannons of interpretation see A.G. Ogun State vs Aderuagba (1985) NWLR (Pt 3)395; Ndoma- Egba vbs vs Chukwuogor & ors (2004) 2 sc (Pt1) 107; Cotecna International Ltd vs Churchgate (Nig.) Ltd (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt 1225) 346” PER KEKERE –EKUN JSC
PROOF OF CONTENT OF A DOCUMENT – CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENT MAY BE PROVED EITHER BY PRIMARY OR SECONDARY EVIDENCE“It is settled law that the contents of a document may be proved by either the primary or secondary evidence see Section 93 of the Evidence Act 1990” PER ONNOGEHEN JSC
PROOF OF DEFAMATION – INGREDIENTS OF LIBEL
“To succeed in an action for libel the plaintiff must prove the following:
1. Publication of the material complained of to some person other than the person of whom it is written;
2. That the words complained of need not necessarily refer to him by name but would be understood by reasonable people to refer to him; and
3. That the publication is defamatory of the plaintiff. See Onu vs Agdese (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt 4) 704; Sketch vs Ajagbemokeferi (1989) 1 NWLR (PT 100); Skpe Bank Plc vs Akinpelu (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt 1198) 179” PER KEKERE –EKUN JSC
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF LIBEL MUST BE BEFORE THE COURT- THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUCCEED IN AN ACTION FOR LIBEL WHERE THE DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE PUBLICATION OF THE LIBELOUS STATEMENT IS NOT BEFORE THE COURT
“It naturally flows that in this instance where the document in issue is not really before Court and therefore no evidence that the offending words were made known to a third party, then the evidence of the plaintiff of suffering a lot of public disgrace which led to nervous breakdown and public scorn and being put before the whole world as a criminal have no effect since there is no foundation on which the purported injury can be built and assessed.” PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
IMPROPRIETY OF ADMITTING UNCERTIFIED SECONDARY COPY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT– UNCERTIFIED SECONDARY COPY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT CANNOT BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT ITS ORIGINAL IS LOST
“There is no exception provided in the kind of secondary evidence of a public document, admissible other than a Certified True Copy. The fact that the original has been lost or destroyed does not give the court any power to admit a photocopy, which is not certified.” PER GALADIMA JSC
CASES CITED