Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 28455 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Asaba

Mon Feb 3, 2025

Suit Number: CA/AS/539/2018

CORAM

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdul-Azeez Waziri Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

1. SAMUEL EGBADJU
2. CLEMENT OBOMINURU
3. AGUMA EMMANUEL
4. AGBADAMASHI MAMUYOVWI
5. FRIDAY JOHNSON
6. IGHO OVIE
7. AKPUGHE ABRAHAM
8. GODFREY ASHEBINOMA

APPELLANTS

DANIEL IGHOFIMONI UREH

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, DEFAMATION, LIBEL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around allegations of defamation by the Respondent (as Plaintiff at the trial Court) against the Appellants. The Respondent, who was a Pastor at the headquarters of Christ Apostolic Revival Mission, claimed that the Appellants had defamed him through a letter dated December 5, 2012, in which they suspended him indefinitely from his pastoral duties, citing various offenses. The letter contained allegations that the Respondent was a liar, deceiver, sower of discord, possessed a dangerous angry spirit, caused delays in church registration for personal gain, was insubordinate, usurped authority, claimed unauthorized positions, acted carnally, and misappropriated church funds. The letter was copied to various church officials and the local police.

The trial Court found in favor of the Respondent, holding that the publications were defamatory to the Respondent in his vocation as a Pastor without any proof of justification of the offenses stated. The Court awarded damages of N1,000,000.00 jointly and severally against the Appellants, and ordered them to publish a retraction of the defamatory publication. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.

2. The decision of the trial Court was affirmed.

3. The Court of Appeal held that Exhibits CA, CA1, and DA4 were properly admitted by the trial Court and correctly relied upon in reaching its decision.

4. The Court found that the Appellants did not challenge the substantive findings of the trial Court regarding the defamatory nature of the publications.

5. The Appellants were ordered to pay costs of N100,000.00 to the Respondent

ISSUES

1. Whether the Honourable Trial Court was right when it admitted unpleaded and unfrontloaded Exhibits ‘DA4’ and ‘CA1’, contrary to Order 22 Rule 4 of the High Court of Delta State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009, and relied on the said exhibits to give judgment in favour of the Respondent.

2. Whether there was convincing evidence linking any or all of the Respondents to authorship and publication of the alleged defamatory letter to the 3rd party, let alone right-thinking members of the society.

3. Whether the purported defamatory letter, unequivocally pleaded by the Respondent, was tendered as Exhibit by the Respondent to establish the essential ingredients of defamation (libel) and thereby entitling the Respondent to the reliefs granted by the Honourable Trial Court.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES – EFFECT OF USING A SINGLE GROUND OF APPEAL TO GENERATE MULTIPLE ISSUES

Unfortunately, the Appellant’s Counsel goofed, dangerously, when he used grounds one and two of the appeal to distill the issue one for the determination of this appeal, only to use the said ground 2 again, to distil the issue 2 for determination of the appeal. We have held, several times, that a ground of appeal cannot be split to generate several Issues for determination of appeal, though an issue for determination of appeal can derive from two or more grounds of appeal. The authorities on this are replete. – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES – CONSEQUENCES OF SPLITTING A GROUND OF APPEAL TO GENERATE DIFFERENT ISSUES

The law or logic is that, once a ground of appeal has been used (either alone or in combination with other grounds) to generate an issue for determination of appeal, the said ground of appeal ceases to remain to donate any other issue for determination.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

EFFECT OF INCOMPETENT ISSUES – CONSEQUENCES OF COMBINING ARGUMENTS FROM COMPETENT AND INCOMPETENT ISSUES

Appellants cannot adopt the arguments earlier made on issues 1 and 2 for the issue 3, considering our earlier ruling that issue 2 was incompetent, by reason of proliferation of Issues. Appellants cannot combine the arguments made in respect of a valid Issue for determination of appeal with those made in respect of an invalid issue to advance a position in an Appeal. – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

COMBINING INCOMPETENT AND COMPETENT GROUNDS – EFFECT ON VALIDITY OF ISSUES

Of course, in relating the Issues(s) for determination of appeal with the grounds(s) of appeal, the Appellant (or party) must avoid joining an incompetent ground of appeal with a competent one to distill an issue, or argue a defective issue for determination, jointly with a competent one as the effect of the wrong joinder is capable of invalidating the entire argument or process. – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS – RELEVANCE OF PLEADINGS TO ADMISSIBILITY

In law, admissibility is governed by pleadings, as it is the pleadings that will state the facts upon which evidence, whether oral or documentary will be adduced and admitted. Thus, in so far as what is pleaded is relevant, including the fact of existence of a document, it is admissible in evidence. It follows therefore that generally, it is relevancy that governs admissibility, and a Court of law has the duty to act only on admissible evidence. – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ELICITED THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION – WHETHER NEED BE PLEADED

And where a piece of evidence and/or document is elicited through cross-examination, the same remains good and admissible evidence in law, the fact that it was not pleaded, notwithstanding. Of course, such evidence/document could not have been foreseen for the purpose of pleading, same flowing from the cross fire of cross-examination in my view, and so could not have been pleaded and frontloaded by the Plaintiff. – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OBJECT AT TRIAL

The law is also that, where a document, which on its face, is not inadmissible in evidence, is admitted as exhibit, without objection at the trial Court, the admissibility of the said document cannot be an issue, again, on appeal.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

FINDINGS NOT APPEALED AGAINST – EFFECT OF FAILING TO CHALLENGE TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS

In this appeal, Appellants did not challenge the above findings of the trial Court, as their only surviving issue for determination, centered on whether or not Exhibits CA, CA1 and DA4 were admissible and properly relied upon. The law is that a finding of Court not appealed against remains binding and conclusive.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS – NATURE OF PUBLICATIONS THAT ARE DEFAMATORY

It is my view that Exhibit CA and CA1 were published in pursuant (sic) of that struggle to cause damages to Claimant’s spiritual aspiration as being a Pastor of his faction. Looking at Exhibit CA and CA1 even though it was stated that they were letters to the Claimant the exhibits were not addressed as letters to the Claimant. It seemed to me they were just publications to the general public and to members of the Church in particular wherein several persons or bodies were copied. I cannot but agree that the publications were defamatory of the Claimant in vocation as a Pastor without any proof of justification of any of the offences stated.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

PUBLICATION IN DEFAMATION – REQUIREMENT OF COMMUNICATION TO THIRD PARTIES

I find it apt to state further that publication in libel, means the making of the defamatory matter to some person other than the person to whom it is written. The writing of a libel to the person or party libeled does not constitute publication for the purpose of a civil action. It is the reduction of the libelous matter to writing and its delivery to any person other than the person injuriously affected thereby that is publication.– Per JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, JCA

ESSENCE OF REPUTATION IN DEFAMATION – REQUIREMENT OF THIRD-PARTY PERCEPTION

The cardinal principle of libel in law is that there must be publication of the libelous matter to a third person other than the person libeled, this is because a person’s reputation is not based on the good opinion he has of himself but the estimation in which others hold him. – Per JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, JCA

JUSTIFICATION AS DEFENSE TO DEFAMATION – FAILURE TO JUSTIFY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS

The appellants made no attempt to justify the publication of the defamatory publication which would have been the only basis upon which they could escape liability.– Per JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, JCA

DISMISSAL OF UNMERITORIOUS APPEAL – AFFIRMATION OF TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT

I do not therefore see any reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial Court in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed for lacking in merit and the decision of the trial Court, affirmed.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. High Court of Delta State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT