IN CO-EXISTING with each other, human beings have cause now and again to quarrel. Natural as this may seem, the law does not thereby permit anyone to voice or write anything which is likely to injure the reputation of his fellow human being. Many writers have opined that when a man loses his good name he is as good as having lost his life. Thus, no one is entitled to treat his neighbour’s reputation with levity. The Law on Defamation exists to protect people’s reputation. The Tort (civil wrong) of Defamation is made up of ‘Libel’ (defamatory words in written form) and ‘Slander’ (spoken defamatory words). It is to be noted, however, that these civil wrongs are only actionable if the offensive words are published; i.e. if the words are said to the hearing of – or printed and circulated among – ‘right-thinking members of the public’.
According to the learned author of LAW OF DEFAMATION IN NIGERIA, Osita Adah, Esq.: ‘A statement is prima facie defamatory if the words, in their natural meaning, tend to: (i) Injure a man’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking or ordinary members of the society; (ii) Cause him to be shunned or avoided; (iii) Expose him to hatred, contempt, odium or ridicule; (iv) Disparage him in his office, trade, profession or calling, and (v) Injure his financial standing.’
Defamation, apart from being a Civil Wrong, can also be a criminal offence that can lead to the conviction of a Defendant. In the main, however, victims of Defamation prefer to seek redress in the civil court so as to claim Damages against the Defendant. In such cases, the court would always require the Plaintiff to prove that he suffered pecuniary damages by reason of the defamatory words in question. That is to say that the Plaintiff must lead evidence to prove that he suffered some assessable financial loss because ‘right-thinking members of the society’ held him in odium and would not patronize him in his trade as a result of the Defamation.
Madam Vee and Lady Kay were members of the same extended family. Lady Kay was a thirty-eight-year-old spinster while Madam Vee was a seventy-two-year-old grandmother. Lady Kay, worried that she was yet to find her Mr. Right, went to consult a ‘Man of God’. The pastor revealed to her that a certain ‘fat and fair’ old woman in her family was responsible for her situation. According to the ‘revelation’, the said fat and fair old woman had stolen a scarf belonging to Lady Kay, which scarf she had taken to her coven and used to cover Lady Kay’s face so that she would never be able to attract a husband. The ‘Man of God’ asked Lady Kay whether she had ever lost a scarf, and she answered that she had lost several. Then, he asked whether there was a fat and fair old woman in her family, to which question she also answered in the affirmative. The fat and fair old woman in Lady Kay’s family happened to be Madam Vee.
So, on her return from the pastor’s place, Lady Kay marched straight to the house of Madam Vee. The old woman was alone with her five-year-old grand-daughter when Lady Kay burst in.
‘My God has finally exposed you!’ Lady Kay bellowed at the old woman by way of greeting. ‘You are a witch and my God has exposed you today! Yes-o! The evil that you’ve been doing in this family has now come out to light. Your sins have found you out!’
Bewildered, the old woman asked Lady Kay:
‘Is it me you’re talking to?’
‘No-o-o!’ Lady Kay yelled at her. ‘It’s the hump on your back that I’m talking to! Witch! There’s nothing hidden that will not be laid bare, that’s what the Bible says. When you stole my scarf and took it to your witchcraft coven to cover my face so that I’d never be able to find a husband, did you know that the all-seeing God was watching you? Oh-ho! Your sin has found you out. Witch! I haven’t come to beg you to release me-o. Never! I cannot beg you; instead you’ll be the one to beg me when Holy Ghost koboko begins to wire you. So, I have come to warn you to go immediately and uncover my face in that your coven! I’m giving you seven days to go to that your witchcraft coven and release me. Release me-o! Or else Holy Ghost thunder will strike you!’
Madam Vee was left speechless when Lady Kay stormed out of her house. As soon as she was able to recover a little from her shock, she picked her phone and called her first son, relating her encounter with Lady Kay to him. The man was furious.
‘I’ll sue her!’ he fumed.
And so he did. When the matter got to court, the Defence Counsel held strongly to one point: the Slander complained of by the Plaintiff was not published. Madam Vee’s five-year-old grand-daughter who had heard Lady Kay’s slanderous words could by no stretch of the imagination be said to be a ‘right thinking member of the public’. Besides, the little girl lacked the capacity to testify in court for Madam Vee. On the whole, only the old woman could be said in law to understand the meaning of the words complained of. Offensive as the words might be, and however aggrieved they made Madam Vee to feel, they did not amount to actionable Slander.
A situation where the Plaintiff would not be required by law to prove financial loss before the court can award Damages in a case of Defamation is when the defamatory words impute sexual immorality against the Plaintiff, being a female. One sunny afternoon, Mrs. TZ accosted Ms. Dee in front of a supermarket before passers-by and shoppers and picked up a quarrel with her, saying to the hearing of all present:
‘Ashawo! Prostitute! My brother will never marry a harlot like you. Never! Do you think we’ve not heard of how you went to Neva City to steal that your so-called son? You got them to inject you so that your stomach would become swollen like a pregnant woman’s stomach, after you’d made the arrangement to steal that baby in Neva City. Desperado! Child thief! You want to trap our brother and force him to marry you, and that’s why you’re lying that you had that bastard for him. Let me tell you, there’s nothing that is hidden under the sun. What you think to be a secret is out there in the marketplace, if you don’t know. Our brother will never marry a prostitute. God forbid! That baby you’re carrying now in your arms is not our child – you stole him! So take your bastard to wherever you got him from. You cannot use him to trap our brother into marriage.’
Those words (not only totally false but also malicious) were pleaded in a case of Defamation brought by Ms. Dee against Mrs. TZ. At the end of the hearing when it was proved that the Plaintiff was neither a prostitute nor a child thief, the court gave judgment in her favour, and exemplary Damages of N2 million were also awarded in her favour against the Defendant.
