Proof of Defamatory Statements Uttered in Language other than English

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 11th day of April, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Mohammed Lawal Garba

Adamu Jauro

Jummai Hannatu Sankey

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein

Abubakar Sadiq Umar

Justices, Supreme Court

SC.370/2010

Between

PRINCEWILL ODIKANWA                     APPELLANT                    And

CHIEF JOSEPH DIBIANTA IHEANACHO                                    RESPONDENT

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Adamu Jauro, JSC)

Facts

The Respondent instituted the action at the High Court of Imo State against the Appellant, for slander. He alleged that during a vigil held in honour of the Appellant’s late father, the Appellant made the following defamatory statement against him in Igbo language: “Onye wu ahu kporo ya Dibianta. Awum Dibraukwu, Ganu kpo Dibianta Iheanacho bu a rat nga mno ihe oma eme bun ani igbu madu. Obia ngaa na abiala, o ga eji oso gbalaga” which translates to: “Who is that person that calls himself Dibianta? I am Dibiakwu. Go and call Iheanacho to come here. Dibianta Iheanacho is a rat to me; the only thing he knows how to do is to kill people. If he comes here tonight, he will take to his heels.” The Respondent claimed the defamatory statements made in Igbo Language were understood by those present,  and this caused harm to his reputation.

At the trial, the Respondent testified as PW1 and called four additional witnesses. Among them, PW2 and PW3, who also attended the vigil, testified to hearing the slanderous statements, while PW5, a Higher Executive Officer attached to the High Court, Owerri, who was called to testify as a sworn interpreter, interpreted the alleged defamatory words to English language. The Appellant, on his part, denied uttering any defamatory words, asserting that he only preached at the vigil. 

After the conclusion of trial, the trial court found that the Respondent proved his claim and awarded him damages in the sum of N500,000.00. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, the Appellant relied on IBEANU v UBA (1972) 2 ECSLR 194, to argue that the defamatory words must be recorded in the exact language in which they were uttered. In its judgement dismissing the Appeal and affirming the judgement of the trial court, the Court of Appeal held that the uncontroverted testimonies of PW1–PW3, who all heard the said defamatory words and also testified in Igbo language, were sufficient and constituted a valid exception to the rule in IBEANU v UBA (Supra). The Court of Appeal also found that the fact that the Appellant failed to produce the video recording of the vigil despite pleading same, meant that the evidence would have been unfavourable to him, and the Court of Appeal invoked the doctrine of withholding evidence in Section 149(d) [now 167(d)] of the Evidence Act against him.

Displeased, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues for Determination

The Supreme Court adopted the two issues distilled by Counsel for the Appellant, for the determination of the appeal as follows:

i) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the finding of the trial court, that the Respondent had proved his case of slander against the Appellant. 

ii) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in distinguishing the case of IBEANU v UBA (1972) 2 ECSLR 194 from the present case, on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Arguments

On the 1st issue, Counsel for the Appellant argued that in an action for defamation, it is a requirement of law that the exact words complained of must be proved at trial. Counsel argued that where the defamatory words were not spoken in English, the record of the trial court must record the words used as uttered in their original language during the testimony, and the Plaintiff must prove through a sworn interpreter that the translation pleaded in the Statement of Claim is accurate. Counsel submitted that since the words as pleaded were not in English, the fact that the records of the trial court only contained the English translation of the words meant that the exact defamatory words were not proved at the trial. Counsel also argued that that the Court of Appeal was wrong for invoking Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act against the Appellant, because since the Respondent failed to prove the precise words uttered, there was no need for the Appellant to lead evidence in rebuttal.

On the 2nd issue, Counsel for the Appellant argued that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to distinguish the facts of the case from the facts in IBEANU v UBA (1972) 2 ECSLR 194. Counsel argued that the only recognised exception to the rule in the IBEANU case is where the Defendant admits the defamatory words, and this is not the case here. 

Responding on issue 1, Counsel for the Respondent argued that both the slanderous words and their English translation were specifically pleaded in the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Claim. Counsel argued that the Respondent, and his two witnesses who attended the vigil, gave consistent testimony establishing the defamatory words as pleaded. Counsel submitted that although Igbo Language is not the official language of the court, the trial court understood the language and properly appreciated the evidence given. 

Similarly, in response to the Appellant’s arguments on issue 2, the Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in distinguishing this case from IBEANU v UBA (SUPRA), since the slanderous words were duly pleaded and the witnesses testified in Igbo language.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

On the 1st issue, the Supreme Court held that in all cases of defamation, whether libel or slander, the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove the defamatory word, and in an action founded on slander, the defamatory words may be proved by pleading the words in a Statement of Claim and establishing same by oral evidence. The Apex Court held further that where slanderous words were uttered in a language other than English Language, whether vernacular or foreign language, what the law requires is that the persons who heard the words understand the language in which they were uttered or published, that the words both in their original form and English translation be set out in the Statement of Claim, and that the meanings of the words in English be proved by an expert sworn interpreter. The Apex Court relied on its earlier decision in ORUWARI v OSLER (2012) LPELR – 19764 (SC).

The Court held that there was no doubt that PW5 who was called by the Respondent at the trial to interpret the alleged defamatory words to English Language, a civil servant who was a Higher Executive Officer attached to the High Court, Owerri as an interpreter, thus, eminently qualified as an expert witness in the circumstance. The Court held further that his interpretation was also materially and substantially the same as the pleadings as contained in the Amended Statement of Claim, and was thus, sufficient proof of the defamatory words.

The Supreme Court also held that contrary to the argument of the Appellant, there is no requirement that the alleged defamatory words must be written in the foreign language/vernacular in the court’s record, in view of the fact that the official language of Nigerian Courts remains the English Language, and it is expected that the trial Judge would record the proceedings in English Language as translated from the original language. The Court held that all that is necessary, is to show that the words were given in evidence in that original language and in the instant case, the record showed that the Respondent as PW1, as well as PW2 and PW3 testified exclusively in Igbo language, and they gave evidence of the slanderous words. This Court held that their testimonies were not disputed by the Appellant, hence, there was no basis to hold that the slanderous words were not proved.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the lower court rightly relied on the case of TOURNIER v NATIONAL PROVINCIAL AND UNION BANK OF ENGLAND (1924) 1 KB 461, in which the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that in an action for slander, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to prove the exact words as pleaded in the statement of claim, and it suffices if he proves the substance of the slanderous words pleaded. The Apex Court held that the crucial requirement is for the pleadings and evidence of the Plaintiff’s witness to support the claim that the defamatory/slanderous words were made, hence, the Plaintiff must discharge the burden placed on him by law of proving that the Defendant made a false defamatory statement about him which was communicated to a third party and caused the Plaintiff harm. 

The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were right to have accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the Respondent which showed that, since the publication of the slanderous words, the Respondent no longer commanded the public respect he used to have and that his clientele as a traditional healer had considerably diminished. The Apex Court further held that by virtue of Section 133(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, the Respondent having successfully discharged the burden of proving his claim on the balance of probabilities, the onus shifted to the Appellant to adduce contrary evidence to rebut the evidence led by the Respondent; however all the Appellant could offer were bare assertions which were not proved by evidence. The Court held that this was more so as the Appellant failed to tender the video recording of the vigil despite asserting in his pleadings that he would tender the same and the Court of Appeal rightly invoked the presumption of withholding evidence as contained in Section 149(d) of the Evidence Act against the Appellant.  

On the 2nd issue as to whether the Court of Appeal was right to have distinguished the case of IBEANU v UBA (1972) 2 ECSLR 194 from the present case, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of stare decisis or judicial precedent which postulates that where the facts in a subsequent case are similar or close to facts in an earlier case that has been decided by the same court or a higher court, judicial pronouncements in the earlier case are utilised to govern and determine the decision in the subsequent case, only mandates lower courts to abide by the decisions of higher courts and not the other way round. The Court held that by the hierarchy of courts created by the Constitution, the East Central State High Court which decided the IBEANU case is lower in hierarchy and subordinate to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The Court held that thus, the decision in the IBEANU case rendered by the East Central State High Court was not binding on the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, and the question whether the Court of Appeal was right to distinguish the facts of this case from the decision in the IBEANU case is of no moment.  

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

A. I. Nwachukwu for the Appellant.

O. D. Atoyebi for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)