-
Air Via Ltd. v. Oriental Airlines Ltd
- kg
1 × ₦300
-
African Reinsurance Corp. v. Aim Consultant Ltd
- kg
1 × ₦300
₦300
In Stock
Facts:
The appellant, a manufacturer of roofing and ceiling materials appointed the respondent as distributor of its products on the condition that the respondent was not to deal or engage in distributing products of rival companies during the pendency of their business relationship. The relationship between the parties turned sour when the appellants accused the respondent of trading and distributing products of rival companies in contravention of the agreement. The appellant consequently, terminated the business relationship between it and the respondent and proceeded to cause several adverts to be published in a Yoruba weekly newspaper called ‘Alaroye’. The adverts which were published in Yoruba language were considered as defamatory by the respondent and it proceeded to file an action against the appellant.
The respondent filed its action at the High Court of Lagos State alleging that the words published by the respondent caused injury to its business reputation. The words alleged to be defamatory were interpreted into English language from Yoruba, the language of publication suggesting that the respondent no longer sells quality products of the appellant and cautioning roofing carpenters, Nigerite dealers and the general public to beware. The appellant also listed the outlets of the respondent in the advert stating that its quality products cannot be bought in the locations listed. The respondent alleged that the said advert is suggestive of the fact that it does not sell original but fake products.
The trial court gave judgment in favour of the respondent and held that the words were defamatory and that he defence of justification made out by the appellant was not sustained by evidence. The appellant became aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. One of the issues distilled for
determination was whether the trial court was right in holding that the words published by the appellant are defamatory of the respondent.