The Sketch Publishing Company Ltd. & Anor V. Alhaji Azeez A. Ajagbemokeferi (1989)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
WALI, J.S.C.
In the High Court of justice of Oyo State, Ibadan Judicial Division, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants in Suit No. 1/259/78 claiming for damages for libel falsely and maliciously published of and concerning him in a 1979 almanac called “Voice of Islam” by the 1st Defendant at the instance of the 2nd Defendant. Pleadings were ordered, delivered and exchanged. In that Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, he alleged that the Defendants defamed him by falsely and maliciously printing and publishing of and concerning him in a 1474 Almanac called “Voice of Islam” as revealed hereunder in the following paragraphs of his Statement of Claim:-
“(5) The Plaintiff is a great Muslim Evangelist and preacher and has his reputation throughout the Muslim world as a prolific preacher and converter of many people to Islam through his preaching, that he was nicknamed and called Ajagbemokeferi, meaning that his vocality to pagans has converted many to the Muslim religion. In consequence of his depth of the Islam religion and a strong believer in the tenets and ideals of the Muslim religion and a prolific preacher and crusader he was conferred with the Chieftaincy Title of OTUN BALOGUN ONIWASU by the Chief Imam of Ibadan ABDULAHI ALHAJI MUYILI, the head and leader of the Muslim community in Ibadan and was turbanned on 5th August. 1978.
(6) The Plaintiff has a slot every Friday on the National Television Authority, Ibadan and his programme centres on the preaching of Islam from the Holy Koran. By this Television Programme, the Plaintiff is known throughout the length and breath of Nigeria as a devoted and upright Muslim.
(7) The Defendants jointly and severally published falsely and maliciously in the said Almanac under the photograph of the Plaintiff the following words in Yoruba Language to wit “ALHAJI A. A. AJAGBEMOKEFERI (OTUN BALOG UN ONIWASU)
Oye yi je oye yeye gegebi oye Adadale. ti Islam ko patapata Egbo bi ANOBI ti wi ki Ike at ola Olorun ki o maba. Ina ni ile gbogbo Aladadale” which literally translated into English Language means that the Chieftaincy title of the Second in rank to the General of Muslim preachers held by the plaintiff is a worthless and valueless Chieftaincy just like Chieftaincy titles of impostors and contrary to the tenets and teachings of Islam. By the word of ANOBI (ALLAH) woe betides such holders of such Chieftaincy and their place is in hell after death.
(8) By the said words pleaded in paragraph 7 supra reasonable people have understood it to mean that the Plaintiff is not a fit and proper person to be conferred or holder of a religious Chieftaincy of Muslim Leader, more especially by this Chieftaincy he has acted contrary to the teachings and tenets of Islam and his final place is in hell and not paradise.
(9) By reason of the publication of the words and photograph of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has been greatly injured in his character, credit and reputation and has suffered damage. Many people have shunned the plaintiff and have avoided the Plaintiff for assistance in prayers.”
Whereupon the Plaintiff Claims from the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:-
“(i) The sum of N1,000,000.00 (ONE MILLION NAIRA) being damages for libel contained in an almanac “VOICE OF ISLAM” written by the 2nd Defendant and published by the 1st Defendant which Almanac is widely circulated in Nigeria and throughout the West Coast of Africa in the community known as Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),
(ii) An injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or servants or otherwise from further printing, circulating, distributing or otherwise, publishing any copies of the said Almanac,”
The Defendants admitted printing and publication of the words complained of, but put up a plea of justification, fair comment and privilege, In paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the 2nd Defendant’s Statement of Defence, he avers that:-
“12. With further reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statement of Claim that 2nd defendant says that the plaintiff is a local preacher who is usually referred to as ‘Oko Ololu’ meaning Ololu’s Husband, until 5th August, 1978, when he was conferred with the Chieftaincy title ‘Otun Balogun’ 2nd Defendant, were present.
- At the time of the plaintiff’s installation as Otun Balogun Oniwasu there has never been such title or vacancy in Mujaiduna Islam Society or in any muslim religion society in Ibadan or anywhere in Nigeria or in the entire muslim world.
- With reference to paragraphs 7 & 8 of the Statement of Claim the 2nd defendant says and will contend that:
(i) The words complained of did not bear and were not understood to bear any defamatory meaning.
(ii) The statement was not made concerning the plaintiff but in respect of the chieftaincy title and its creators of which the plaintiff was not named as one of them.
(iii) The words complained of were published bonafide and without malice towards the plaintiff on the occasion of qualified privilege.
(iv) In so far as the words complained of consist of statements of facts they were true in substance and in fact.
(v) The words were fair bonafide comment without malice towards the plaintiff of facts truly stated which were a matter of public interest.
- The 2nd defendant will rely on the following facts and matters in support of allegations in paragraph 14(iv) above that:
(i) The statement literally translated into English means “This chieftaincy title is a ridiculous title like a self-established title to which Islam is completely opposed.” Hear what Mohammed said (Peace & Blessing of Allah be upon him) “Hell is the abode of all these who indulge in self-establishment (i.e. of things contrary to the tenets and teachings of Islam).”
(ii) The statement imports no imputation or reference to the propriety, suitability or otherwise of the Plaintiff either personally or as a Muslim preacher in being conferred with such a title or that the plaintiff is fake.
(iii) The title “OTUN BALOGUN”s a secular one pertaining to traditional Chief with superior and subordinate ranks or offices.
(iv) “Oniwasu” literally translated into English means “a preacher” and it has no hierarchy in Muslim religion, teaching and law.
(v) The naming or installing of a person as Otun Balogun (Secular Chieftaincy title) is self-created practice contrary to the tenets and teachings of Mohammed and the practice cannot be supported by the Holy Koran nor can it be found in any of the Hadiths.
- With further reference to paragraph 14(v) of the Statement of Claim the 2nd defendant says that the installation and acceptance of secular chieftaincy title by Muslim preachers is a matter of public interest and the 2nd defendant as 2nd Editor of Voice of Islam is entitled to comment on it being matters agitating the minds of muslims and the public in general and on which the public should be enlightened.
- With reference to paragraph 9 of the Statement of claim the 2nd defendant denies that the plaintiff has been greatly injured or injured at all or in any respect whatever by the said statement and neither was he shunned nor avoided.”
While the 1st Defendant avers in paragraph, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of his Statement of Defence as follows:-
“(4) IN THE ALTERNATIVE the 1st Defendant admits printing the Almanac referred to in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim but specifically denies ever printing the said Almanac maliciously or with knowledge that any of the contents was false.
(5) The 1st Defendant will contend at the trial of the case that it was neither the editor nor the publisher of the Almanac referred to in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim.
(6) The 1st Defendant avers that the said Almanac was printed in its Commercial Printing Department and that the printing was done as a purely commercial transaction between it and the 2nd Defendant without malice to the Plaintiff or knowledge of any malicious intention to the Plaintiff.
(7) FURTHER IN THE ALTERNATIVE the 1st Defendant will rely on the defence of fair comment at the trial, in that the words complained of and set out in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim were fair comments made in good faith and. without malice upon a matter of public interest, namely the conferment of a chieftaincy title on the Plaintiff, purporting it to he a chieftaincy title in the moslem community of Ibadan, and which conferment is not in accordance with the tenets of the Islam Religion nor the dictates of the Koran.
WHEREOF the 1st Defendant says that the Plaintiffs claim is misconceived, speculative and vexatious and ought to be dismissed with substantial costs.”
The Plaintiff filed a reply to the Statement of Defence.
The parties called witnesses in proof of the averments contained in their respective pleadings, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the learned trial Judge, Ayorinde J. after evaluating the evidence and making several findings among which are –
(a) ‘There is evidence before me from all the plaintiffs witnesses and the 2nd Defendant that the Plaintiff is a prolific Moslem preacher. It has also been said that in consequence he was given this title. According to 5th plaintiff witness, the plaintiff would not be conferred the title if he did not want it. I accept these pieces of evidence. The only reasonable reaction that ordinary reasonable people will have to the picture, the chieftaincy title and the comment complained of in exhibit “B” is that the plaintiff is also a despicable character whose final abode will he hell. In the circumstance, I find as a fact that the words complained of refer to the plaintiff and arc capable of hearing defamatory meaning. The court needs only to he satisfied that expressly or impliedly allegedly offending words refer to the plaintiff and are capable of defamatory meaning to the plaintiff. See S.B. Salumo v. The Sketch Publishing Company (1972) 1 ALL N.L.R. (Part 2) 130. An ordinary person should regard the offending words in the circumstances as being capable of bearing defamatory meaning and it is the test of the ordinary person that I should adopt.
(b) It is my view and I find as a fact that the comments made arc on matter of public interest in view of the fact that it is accepted by all sides that the plaintiff is a public figure. The title given to him generated a lot of controversy. The evidence of the 2nd defendant whom I believe refers; the words complained of can only he regarded as criticism of the conferment of the chieftaincy title conferred on the plaintiff. The criticism has been said to be an honest opinion and as I have found are supported by the relevant provisions of the Koran and Hadith referred to. It follows that the publication is privileged.
(c)I should refer to Section 16(1) and (2) of the Defamation Law Cap. 32 of the Laws of Western Nigeria which is yet applicable in Oyo State. As the plaintiff has failed to sustain any malice against the 1st defendant. it follows that no liability would attach to the publication being complained of; he concluded-
“the action of the Plaintiff fails and it is dismissed in its entirety.”
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division. The appeal was unanimously allowed, and in the lead Judgment of that court prepared by Belgore, J.C.A. (as he then was) the following order was further made:-
However the issue of quantum of damages was not addressed upon by the parties before the learned trial Judge, Ayorinde. J., and I remit this back to him for assessment of damages on which he could be addressed by the counsel for the parties.”
With the leave of this Court, the Defendants have now appealed to this court on several grounds. The parties filed and exchanged briefs which they adopted during the hearing and made oral submissions in elaboration thereof.
For the purpose of this appeal, both the Plaintiff and the Defendants will henceforth be referred to as the Respondent and the Appellants, respectively.
The only issue formulated for determination in this appeal and on which the parties are at ad idem reads-
‘Whether or not having regard to the facts of this case, the defence of fair comment was available to the Defendants.’
I agree with the issue formulated and reproduced supra; I am also of the view that in the light of the evidence, the other additional issue will be-
“Whether the words, even if defamatory, refer to the Plaintiff/Respondent.”
The facts of this case simply put, are as follows:-
The Plaintiff/Respondent is a renowned Islamic Preacher of good repute and resides at Ife Road, Ibadan. Because of his evangelical work to Islamic religion, he was given the nickname of “Ajagbemokeferi” and in further recognition of this continuing crusade work, the Chief Imam of Ibadan and head leader of the Muslim Community, conferred on the Plaintiff/Respondent the Chieftaincy Title of “Otun Balogun Oniwasu” and was so turbanned on August 5th, 1978.
The 1st Defendant/Appellant is a publisher and printer of the newspaper known as and called Daily Sketch while the 2nd Defendant/Appellant is the editor of and publisher of a Muslim monthly newspaper called “Voice of Islam” and other publications for the propagation of Islam. In the publication of the “Voice of Islam” described as Almanac for 1979, photographs of many eminent Muslim leaders in Nigeria including that of the Plaintiff/Respondent were printed. The Defendants/Appellants jointly and severally printed and published under the Plaintiff/Respondent’s photograph in the said Almanac some words in Yoruba language, alleged to be defamatory of the Plaintiff, and which when translated into English language, bear the following meaning:-
“That the Chieftaincy title of the second in rank to the general of Muslim preachers held by the Plaintiff is a worthless and valueless Chieftaincy just like chieftaincy title of impostors and contrary to the tenets and teachings of Islam. By the word of ANOBI (ALLAH), woe betides such holders of such chieftaincy and their place is in hell after death.”
Whereupon, the Plaintiff/Respondent filed the suit claiming the reliefs earlier set out in this judgment.
As the learned Counsel for the Appellants said in his brief and with which I agree, the real issue contested in the High Court was the religious propriety or otherwise of introducing as an innovation, the Yoruba traditional title of Otun Balogun, to purely Islamic affairs. This was further made clear by the portion of the words complained of that the title….. “a worthless and valueless chieftaincy.” Learned counsel submitted that the purport of paragraphs 1, 5 and 6 of the Respondent’s statement of claim is to portray him as a public figure in Islamic religious affairs and that religion is a matter of public interest. In support of the submission above, learned counsel referred to and relied on a portion in the Respondent’s evidence and to paragraphs 701 at page 292 of Gatley on Libel and Slander (7th Edition). He therefore submitted that even if the words complained of arc found to be defamatory, the Appellants are covered by the defence of fair comment as decided by the learned trial Judge. He further submitted that it was common ground between the parties that the title conferred on the Respondent docs not exist in either the Holy Koran or the Hadith (authentic sayings and deeds of the Holy Prophet Muhammad) and same is therefore an innovation.
Learned Counsel also argued that the statement, even if found to be defamatory, was covered by the defence of qualified privilege as found by the learned trial Judge.
In reply to arguments supra, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Court of Appeal was right in its judgment when it held that the defences of fair comment and justification were not available to the Appellants-since the words complained of were not fair comments but categorical and authoritative assertions of fact and that the authorities quoted and relied upon have clearly vindicated that not all innovations are forbidden in Islam and that the traditional title conferred on the respondent is such one of them. Learned Counsel also referred to the evidence of the 2nd defendant/appellant, particularly under cross-examination and submitted that it was a further indication of malicious motive of the 2nd defendant in the publication of the libelous words against the respondent. It was also the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant did not specifically plead that respondent was a public figure and therefore the Court of Appeal finding to that effect was justified. He cited numerous authority in support of his submission above and concluded.
That the fact that the plaintiff was a public figure was not pleaded and therefore went to no issue.
- That although the subject-matter of the publication, religion, is a matter of public interest, the Defendants exceeded the ambit or the defence of fair comment as (regarding) held by the Court of Appeal.
- That the libelous statement referred to the Plaintiff and not merely to his title.
- That the Defendants were actuated by malice in publishing the libelous statements.
He urged this court to dismiss the appeal.
Before going into the main issue canvassed in this appeal, it is pertinent to deal now with the procedural issue of whether the Appellants in their respective pleadings, pleaded that the Respondent is a public figure and there fore entitled to comment on it.
In paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim, the Respondent averred that:-
“5. The plaintiff is a great Muslim Evangelist and has his reputation throughout the Muslim world as a prolific preacher and converter of many people to Islam through his preaching, that he was nicknamed and called Ajaghemokeferi, meaning that his vocality to pagans has converted many to the Muslim religion. In consequence of his depth of the Islam religion and a strong believer in the tenets and ideals of the Muslim religion and a prolific preacher and crusader, he was conferred with the Chieftaincy Title of OTUN BALOGUN ONIWASU by the Chief Imam of Ibadan ABDULAHI ALHAJI MUYILI., the head and leader of the Muslim community in Ibadan and was turbanned on 5th August, 1978.”
The averments supra were later supported by the evidence called by the Respondent. The 2nd Appellant himself in his evidence agreed that the Respondent is a Muslim preacher, although he called him a local preacher. There is an unchallenged as well as undiscredited evidence that the Respondent is a Muslim Evangelist and a preacher. He was given a slot every Friday on the National Television Authority, Ibadan to preach and propagate Islam. In recognition of his contribution, he was conferred with, by the Chief Imam of Ibadan, the Chieftaincy title of Otun Balogun Oniwasu. These facts, in my view, depicted the Respondent as a public figure within the locality of his own community. These facts were pleaded in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, and for the Appellant’s to comment on the issue, they need not plead the fact again.
The complaint is therefore baseless and devoid of any merit.
The next and main issue is one of defamation. A defamatory statement is defined in Words and Phrases Legally Defined Vol. 8.p. 28 as “a statement which, if published of and concerning a person, is calculated to lower him in the estimation of the right-thinking men or cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade, or business.”
In an action for defamation, the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove that the words complained of conveyed a defamatory meaning to whom they were published.
In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the Respondent is an eminent Islamic religious preacher and in recognition of his contributions in this field, the Chief Imam of Ibadan. in his capacity as the leader of the local Muslim Community, conferred on Respondent, the honorary Chieftaincy ‘Title of OTUN BALOGUN ONIWASU’ which means “the next in rank or the right hand man to the Moslim Leader.”
After the Respondent was conferred and installed as Otun Balogun Oniwasu, the 2nd Appellant wrote and published of and concerning the Respondent through the 1st Appellant the words complained of.
In actions involving libel, it is settled law that the question whether the words complained of are, in fact, defamatory of the Plaintiff, is a matter for the jury and it is for the Judge to decide on the evidence adduced in support of the complaint, whether they are capable of referring to the Plaintiff as well as capable of conveying defamatory meaning in the minds of reasonable persons in the circumstances of the particular case. In Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. (1944) A.C. 116 and Nevill v. Fine Art and General Insurance Co. (1987) A.C.68. Since the trial by jury system no longer exists in this country. the trial Judge discharges the two functions.
In this case, the words complained of are contained in the 1979 Almanac described as “Voice of Islam.” The Almanac showed inter alia, the photograph of the Appellant with the following words under it in Yoruba language:-
“ALHAJI A.A. AJAGBEMOKEFERI
(OTUN BALOGUN ONIWASU)
Oye yi je Oye yeye gegebi oye Adadale, ti Islam ko patapata.
Egbo bi ANOBI ti wi ki Ike ati ola Olorun ki o ma ba. Ina ni ile gbogbo Aladadale
Meaning in English language that” Alhaji A.A. Ajagbemokeferi (second in command to the general of Muslim preachers). This Title is a worthless chieftaincy just like chieftaincy titles of impostors and contrary to the tenets and teachings of Islam. Hear the words of Anobi; hell is the abode of all inventors.”
It is common ground that the title conferred on the Respondent does not exist in the Koran or Hadith. It is also agreed by both parties that such title is a Yoruba traditional chieftaincy title and therefore an innovation since same was neither mentioned in the Koran nor in the Hadith. It is therefore an innovation. But as stated in the evidence adduced by the Respondent not all innovations arc barred by Islam and declared illegal. This was confirmed by the undiscredited evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.7:
It is not a correct interpretation of the verses of the Holy Koran and the Hadith referred to by the 2nd Appellant when he opined that anything not mentioned in the Koran or the Hadith is a bad innovation. The innovations or inventions prohibited by Islam are those that are against and contradict the tenets of Islam. This was confirmed by the 2nd Appellant himself in his evidence. Therefore the chieftaincy title – Otun Balugun Oniwasu, that is second in command to the general of Muslim Preachers, though an innovation is not against the Islamic religious tenets and not prohibited. It is a permissive innovation.
The next thing to consider is whether the words are infact defamatory and on the evidence adduced, capable of referring to the plaintiff as well as capable of conveying a defamatory meaning in the minds of reasonable persons in the circumstances of that particular case.
From the evidence, it is accepted that the chieftaincy conferred on the Respondent is only a practice among the Yoruba Muslim Community of Ibadan. It is a local affair which has neither national nor international recognition. It is a statement of fact that it is an innovation. The words that the title is a worthless chieftaincy just like that of innovators contrary to the tenets and teachings of Islam” is nothing more than an expression of opinion.
The words “Hell is the abode of all innovators” can be a statement of fact as well as an expression of opinion. It is a statement of fact in so far as they arc taken to be the words of the Prophet Mohammed and related to innovations strictly prohibited, and an expression of opinion if such an innovation is permissive.
Then reading the whole words in the con and circumstances they were used, it is my view that they are not defamatory. This is confirmed by the evidence of the majority of the Plaintiffs witnesses. The evidence shows that from the time the words were allegedly published of and concerning the Respondent, he was not avoided or shunned. Nor did the evidence show that his status was lowered in the estimation of the right thinking men of his community or that he was exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule. There is no reliable evidence showing that the imputation on him is injurious to him in his office, profession, trade or business. He is still being respected as a prominent and respectful Islamic preacher by his local community. This is evidenced by his retention to continue with his weekly Friday sermon.
The innuendo pleaded by the respondent alleges that the Plaintiff is not a fit and proper person to be conferred or holder of a religious chieftaincy of Muslim leader; more especially by this chieftaincy he has acted contrary to the teachings and tenets of Islam.
In the first place, reading the words in the con they were used, could it be said that they refer to the Respondent My answer shall certainly be in the negative.
What was condemned in the words are the innovation and the innovators. The plain meaning of the words as translated can give no other meaning. As regards the innuendo, upon a reasonable construction of the words, they could not be regarded as referring to the Respondent but, as I have earlier said, to the innovation and the innovators. The Respondent is not one of the innovators. Even if they are taken to be so, the innuendo was not such as reasonable persons would draw the conclusions inferred therein.
The 2nd Appellant is a prominent member of the Muslim organization called Mujaidunal Islam and is in fact the Editor of the Almanac in which the alleged defamatory words were printed and published. The purpose of the magazine is the propagation of Islam.
The Respondent is an eminent public religious figure engaged in the propagation of Islam. The title conferred on the Respondent has a religious connotation. In my view, the 2nd Appellant in his capacity as the editor of Voice of Islam, had a duty to comment on the conferment of the chieftaincy on the Respondent as it was a matter of public interest. The publication even if remotedly considered to be defamatory, is well covered by the defence of fair comment.
In Hon. O. Awolowo v. Zik Enterprises Ltd. & Anor. 14 W.A.C.A. 696 where the innuendos pleaded were that the Plaintiff and certain other Ministers held a conference with the Government and a meeting with the Governor in order to interfere with the course of justice in certain cases- mentioned in the alleged libelous statements, it was held by the West African Court of Appeal that upon a reasonable construction, the first article could not be regarded as referring to the Plaintiff, but at the policy of the party, that is, Action Group; and that the second article in the first suit though it was capable of referring to the Plaintiff, the innuendo was not such as a reasonable person would draw.
Also in C. Nwachukwu v. J. Nnoremele (1957) 2 E.R.L.R. 50 where the Respondent sued the Appellant in the Magistrate Court alleging that the words uttered by the Appellant that “You silly Joseph Osu like you, you have no right to question my father.” The words were uttered at a meeting of the local village of Akwu Ato, in Owerri to which community both Appellant and Respondent belonged; it was held on appeal by Mbanefo J. (as he then was) that – (i) since the Osu system did not obtain throughout the region and had a local connotation, where it did obtain, it was essential for the Plaintiff to prove that a defamatory meaning would be placed on the expression “Osu” by those to whom the word was published, and that he had failed to do so; and (ii) the word “Osu” is not a word which the courts in the absence of evidence, can regard as being defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning, for its meaning may vary from locality to locality.”
I am in entire agreement with the exposition of the law as above and I adopt it. The mere fact that you say to a man that he will go to hell because he is an innovator is not defamatory of him nor could such a defamatory meaning be inferred. The test has always been as Obaseki, J.S.C. has succinctly restated it in the following words in Dumbo v. Idugboe (1983) J.S.C. N.L.R. 29 at 48
In deciding whether words are capable of conveying defamatory meaning, the court will reject that meaning which can only emerge as the product of some strained or forced or utterly unreasonable interpretation (per Lord Morris in Jones v. Skelton (1963) 1 W.L.R. at p. 1370).
The test of reasonableness guides and directs the court in its function of deciding whether it is open to a jury in any particular case to hold that reasonable persons would understand the words complained of in a defamatory sense. In determining whether the words are capable of a defamatory meaning, the Judge will construe the words according to the fair and natural meaning which would be given them by reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence and will not consider what persons setting themselves to work to deduce some unusual meaning might succeed in extracting from them. The test according to Lord Selborne is whether, under the circumstances in which the writing was published, reasonable men to whom the publication was made would be likely to understand them in a libellous sense.”
See also the case of Okofo v. Midwest Newspaper Corporation (1977) 1 S.C. 33 and Okafor v. Ikeanyi (1971)3-4 S.C.99
The hierarchy of the Chieftaincy title in question is only limited to Ibadan and its Muslim community and the words complained of are not such that can be regarded as being defamatory in both their natural and ordinary meaning. They are nothing but vulgar statement and mere abuse. If the statement that a person will go to hell simpliciter is construed to be defamatory our courts of law will be honey-combed by litigation in defamation by opposing sects and groups in Islam as each regard certain religious practices in the other as inventions and those who practice them as innovators or unbelievers, whose actions will ultimately land them in hell fire.
For the reasons stated above, I shall allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and in place thereof restore the order of dismissal of the suit, entered by the High Court. The suit is accordingly dismissed. The Appellants are awarded N500.00 costs in this appeal and N300.00 in the Court of Appeal.
SC.47/1986
