PROFESSOR FOLARIN SHYLLON VS MRS JUDITH ASEIN

CORAM

A.B. WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S.U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

Y.O. ADIO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.I. IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

PROFESSOR FOLARIN SHYLLON

APPELLANTS

MRS JUDITH ASEIN

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

DEFAMATION

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The facts in this case were not in dispute. The respondent/plaintiff filed three separate actions in the High Court against the appellant/ defendant, claiming in each action, the sum of N1,000,000.00 for libel contained in three separate identical letters addressed to three different officials by the defendant. Along with the writs were the statements of claim, and after service of the writs on the defendant and entering appearance, a Motion on Notice was filed praying that the Statement of Claim be struck out on the grounds that It discloses no reasonable cause of action and the action is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. The trial judge held that the Statement of claim filed along with the Writ of Summons disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of the process of the court. He accordingly struck it out and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal in which the appeal was allowed. The defendant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal failed and was dismissed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the decision of the court below to reject the evidence that the parties agreed that the decision in Suit No. I/155/85 should determine the motions in Suit Nos. I/156/85 and I/157/85 is one which can reasonably be made on the evidence and material before the court by a tribunal, acting judicially, and properly instructed or directed as to the relevant law applicable to the case.

2. Do the provisions of Section 33 of the 1979 Constitution and the rules of the common law doctrine of audi alteram partem operate so as to require the court to hear the other two motions on notice after the trial court had given its considered judgment in Suit No. I/155/85.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DUTY OF COUNSEL TO COURT

“Once a counsel announces his appearance in court, whether he says he is holding brief for the other or not, the court takes it that he is fully authorized to conduct the case as the other would do. If for any reason he is not in a position to do so, he should state his reason to the court and then apply for adjournment for the other counsel to appear. Without doing so, the court is not obliged to wait for them.” Per WALI J.S.C.