Tort (158)
Technical malice arises where malice is inferred by operation of law i.e. where it is pleaded that the words were printed and published "falsely and maliciously" and it is shown that the defamatory words were published without lawful excuse, the law presumes that the Defendant is motivated by malice. In such a situation, the Plaintiff is not required to give particulars of the facts on which he seeks to rely in support of the allegation that the words were published "maliciously". Bakare v. Ibrahim (1973) 6 SC 205; Atoyebi v. Odudu (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 157) 384. [Po 53] Paras. C-E Mainstreet Bank Ltd. & Anor. v. Binna [2016] 2 M. J. S. C (Pt. II)
"...The general principle is that the tort of negligence arises when a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is breached and to succeed in action or negligence the plaintiff must prove by the preponderance of evidence or the balance of probabilities that:
"Negligence has been defined in numerous authorities or cases to mean the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally want only or willfully disregardful of others rights. The term denotes culpable carelessness.
"The law is settled that a plaintiff or Claimant who in Civil Matter desires that a right or benefit should be declared or found in his favour against a defendant must plead adequate and direct or circumstantial facts that can sustain his case against his opponent.