The Court of Appeal Lagos Division has ruled that the mere publication of an allegedly defamatory statement is not enough to sustain a claim for libel, holding that a claimant must produce credible evidence showing that the publication actually lowered his or her reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
The court made the pronouncement while dismissing an appeal filed by the Chief Executive Officer of EbonyLife Group, Mosunmola (Mo) Abudu, against the judgement of the Lagos State High Court, which dismissed her libel suit against child rights advocate, Oluyemisi Wada.
In a unanimous decision, the three-member panel held that although Wada admitted publishing the disputed article, Abudu failed to establish a crucial element of defamation because she did not call any independent witness to testify that the publication negatively affected their opinion of her.
The panel, comprising Justices Folasade Ayodeji-Ojo, Muslim Sule Hassan and Polycarp T. Kwahar, delivered its lead judgment through Justice Hassan.
Abudu had sued Wada for libel, seeking N100 million in general damages, N100 million in aggravated damages, an order compelling Wada to publish a retraction and apology in THISDAY, two national newspapers and online platforms, as well as a perpetual injunction restraining further publication of the alleged defamatory statements.
In her defence, Wada denied liability and relied on the defences of justification and fair comment.
She maintained that her publication merely questioned the management of funds raised during a benefit concert organised by Abudu for street children, arguing that the issue was one of legitimate public interest.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, Abudu appealed on six grounds. She argued that the trial judge erred by holding that she failed to prove publication despite Wada’s admission that she authored and published the article.
She also contended that the lower court was wrong to insist on evidence from third parties before determining whether the words complained of were defamatory.
Before considering the substantive appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Wada’s preliminary application seeking to strike out two grounds of appeal and the related issues formulated by Abudu.
The court held that the grounds properly arose from the trial court’s decision and were therefore competent.
On the merits, however, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that Abudu failed to prove an essential ingredient of defamation.
Justice Hassan held that although Wada admitted publishing the article in THISDAY, publication alone could not establish libel. Newspapers
The court further held that while publication in a national newspaper amounts to publication to the whole world, the claimant must still call at least one person who read the publication and whose opinion of the claimant was adversely affected.
The court further held that while publication in a national newspaper amounts to publication to the whole world, the claimant must still call at least one person who read the publication and whose opinion of the claimant was adversely affected.
Justice Hassan observed that Abudu testified only on her own behalf despite claiming that several friends and associates contacted her after reading the publication.
“The appellant must go ahead to establish that in the eyes of reasonable men or third parties her reputation has been ruined, her estimation destroyed or her business value diminished before damage can be established,” the court held.
The court added that for it to determine, without evidence from readers, that the publication was defamatory would amount to speculation and improperly draw the court into the arena of the dispute.
It consequently resolved the first two issues against Abudu.
On the third issue, relating to Wada’s reliance on the defences of justification and fair comment, the court held that the publication concerned a matter of public interest involving funds raised from members of the public for charitable purposes.