Tort (158)
HELD:
"...Generally, a privileged occasion arises if the communication is of such a nature that it could be fairly said that those who made it had an interest in making a communication and those to whom it was made had a corresponding interest in having it made to them.
HELD:
"On the issue of the defence of qualified privilege relied on by the appellant, it is a defence to an untrue publication.
HELD:
"I agree with the submission of Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the assault and battery of the appellant by the 2nd respondent was not a method of driving the 1st respondent's bus from Abuja to Lagos
HELD:
"The key issue or the fulcrum of the instant appeal is whether the 1st Respondent was vicariously liable for the negligence or injury caused to the Appellant by the 2nd Respondent who was an employee of the 1st Respondent.
HELD:
"I entirely agree with the submission of learned counsel for the 1st and 3rd set of plaintiffs/respondents that the Court of Appeal based its findings on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) L.R 3 HL 330 and the maxim of res ipsa loquitur.
HELD:
"It should be noted that where the defence pleads justification, it is admitting the fact that the publication is libelous of the plaintiff but that the plaintiff has no reputation whatsoever but if the defence is that of qualified privilege it can only be claimed when it is shown that the occasion of the publication is privileged.
HELD:
"To succeed in an action for libel the plaintiff must prove the following: