OBA GABRIEL ADEKUNLE AROMOLARAN V. DR. (REV.) ROLAND OLAPADE (2015)

CASE SUMMARY

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen JSC
  • Suleiman Galadima JSC
  • Mary Ukuego Peter-Odili JSC
  • Kumai Bayang Aka'ahs JSC
  • Kudirat M. O. Kekere-Ekun JSC

Suit number: SC. 264/2003

Delivered on: 2015-02-02

Parties:

Appellant:

  • OBA GABRIEL ADEKUNLE AROMOLARAN

Respondent:

  • DR. (REV.) ROLAND OLAPADE AGORO

Background

The case arose from a libel action where the appellant, Oba Gabriel Adekule Aromolaran, accused the respondent, Dr. (Rev.) Roland Olapade Agoro, of publishing defamatory remarks about him to the then Military Governor of Oyo State. The purported libelous publication claimed that Agoro possessed forged academic credentials. The respondent sought general damages and an injunction, claiming public humiliation and distress due to the appellant's statements.

Issues

The Supreme Court assessed several critical issues, notably:

  • Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the trial court's decision in contradiction of established case law which states that only certified copies of public documents are admissible as secondary evidence.
  • Whether it was incorrect for the Court of Appeal to base its judgment on an uncertified photocopy of a public document.

Ratio Decidendi

The court opined that:

  • The unambiguous provisions of the Evidence Act stipulate that secondary evidence of public documents must be certified copies. This principle was not honored with the acceptance of exhibit P7, which was merely a photocopy.
  • The failure to produce the original document does not grant the court discretionary power to admit photocopies that fail to meet certification requirements.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found significant errors in both lower courts. The primary document cited as evidence in the respondent's case was not admissible under legal standards since no certified copy was provided. The court emphasized that the publication of a libelous statement necessitates proof that the remarks were indeed made known to a third party, an element the respondent could not substantiate given the inadmissibility of exhibit P7.

Conclusion

The court allowed the appeal, effectively setting aside the lower courts' decisions and dismissing the case against the appellant. The improper handling of evidentiary standards laid the foundation for the Supreme Court's finding as well.

Significance

This ruling underscores crucial principles of evidence law in libel cases in Nigeria. It reaffirms the necessity for litigants to adhere to statutory requirements regarding the admissibility of documents—specifically that only certified copies of public documents can serve as secondary evidence in court proceedings, thereby preventing injustice based on improperly substantiated claims.

Counsel:

  • Michael F. Land Esq.
  • Adekola Olawole