PERETU V. HARVEY GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LTD (2017)

Background

This case arises from the appellant, Barrister (Prince) Peretu, who served as the Chairman of Sagbama Local Government Area in Bayelsa State. He instituted a libel action against the respondents, alleging that a publication in the Izon-Link Newspaper made false claims about his conduct, specifically accusing him of misappropriating money belonging to the local government.

Issues

The appeal raised several legal issues that the court needed to address:

1. Whether the respondents proved the defence of justification.
2. Whether the appellant admitted the content of the defamatory publication.
3. Whether the appellant's counsel at the lower court admitted the appellant’s guilt in the final written address.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the defence of justification, which asserts that the defamatory statement is true, had not been established by the respondents. The burden of proof lies with the defendants, and they failed to substantiate the truth of their allegations. Furthermore, the appellate court also ruled that reliance on a counsel’s address as a substitute for actual evidence was inappropriate.

Court Findings

The court made several critical findings:

• The defence of justification is a complete defence in a defamation action and must be proven by credible evidence.
• The lower court erred in upholding the respondents’ defence of justification based on insufficient evidence and speculative admissions attributed to the appellant.
• Admission must be clear and unequivocal; no such admissions by the appellant were found.
• Counsel’s addresses do not replace the need for actual evidence and should not be treated as admissions.
• The trial court had also misapplied crucial evidence, mistaking exhibits related to the loan approval process.

Conclusion

In light of these findings, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturned the trial court's decision, awarded damages to the appellant, and mandated that the respondents make a public retraction of the defamatory statements.

Significance

This case emphasizes the critical principle that he who asserts must prove, particularly in defamation claims, where a failure to substantiate claims can lead to significant damages. It highlights the paramount importance of credible evidence in libel cases and the limitations of counsel's addresses as a substitute for proof.