Whether a Class of Persons Can Be Defamed; Duty on a Person Within That Class Who Intends to Maintain an Action for Defamation

CASE TITLE: ACCESS BANK PLC v. EDIALE (2025) LPELR-81868(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:  22ND JULY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: TORT

LEAD JUDGMENT: RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Tort of Defamation.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Lagos delivered on the 28th of February, 2020.

By a Writ of Summons issued on the 17th November 2016, the Respondent commenced this suit against the Appellant and the Punch Nigeria Limited wherein the Respondent sought the following reliefs:

a. Damages against the Defendant being damages on the footing of aggravated or exemplary damages for libel.

​b. An order of perpetual injunction against the Defendants, by themselves or by their servants, or agents or otherwise however, from further publication of the sai words as contained in the Punch Newspaper publication of 1st June 2016 at page 24 or any of them or of words to the like effect.

c. An Order directing the Defendant to retract and apologize for the libelous statement of and concerning the Claimant and to publish the retraction and apology in 3 National Newspapers including the 2nd Defendant with wide circulation in Nigeria.

It is the Respondents case that he was, until 27 May 2016 (when his appointment was terminated), an employee (Assistant Manager) in the Appellant’s bank. The Respondent’s contention is that after his employment was terminated, a publication was made by Punch Nigeria Limited on the 1st June 2016 captioned “Diamond Bank fires 200 workers.” This, according to the Respondent was libellous to his person. The Respondent therefore instituted this action against the Appellant and Punch Nigeria Limited.

Both the Appellant and the Punch Newspaper filed their statement of defence vehemently denying the Respondent’s allegations.

The Trial Court gave judgment in favour of the Respondent, and awarded the sum of 20 million as damages against the Appellant.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court and therefore filed this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court of Appeal adopted the following issues for the determination of the appeal:

i. Whether exhibit CW1-CW8 and exhibit DW5 heavily relied on by the lower Court were inadmissible evidence and where this is in the negative, whether this Honourable Court is empowered to expunge same from evidence.

ii. Whether the lower Court was wrong to have held the Appellant liable for libel.

iii. Whether the lower Court was wrong when it held that the Appellant did not specifically deny averments of the Respondent in Paragraph 16 of the Statement of Claim and the facts therein was uncontroverted and unchallenged.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- PLEADINGS: How must material allegations in pleadings be denied
• EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Effect of failure of a Court to evaluate the evidence before it
• TORT- DEFAMATION: What a plaintiff must plead/prove to sustain an action in libel
• TORT- DEFAMATION: Whether a class of persons can be defamed; duty on a person within that class who intends to maintain an action for such defamation
• TORT- DEFAMATION: Requirements of the law on publication in defamation
• TORT- DEFAMATION: What is the evidential burden when defamatory words are directed at a class of persons; how is same discharged

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol