STANDARD ENGINEERING CO., LTD. v. NEW TIMES CORPORATION

JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.

The plaintiffs are claiming damages for libel contained in the Weekly Spectator of 12 October 1974 written by one Yakubu Dadinkai and printed and published by the defendant corporation.

The writer of the article, according to the statement of claim, said in substance that the State Insurance Corporation was losing large sums of money in motor claims and this was due to the fact that repair bills were woefully inflated by workshops and, sometimes, in so far as wayside [p.410] fitters are concerned, little or no work was done on the vehicles. The writer went on to say that he visited the workshop of the plaintiffs and after failing to locate the managing director, he saw one Mr. Bossman in a melancholy mood and approached him. Mr. Bossman said to him that he sent his car to the plaintiffs for repairs and the bill was to be paid by the State Insurance Corporation. The report continued:

Mr. Bossman said among the names of approved garages presented to him he chose the Standard Engineers who have been carrying out minor repairs on his car with honesty. But he said he was surprised at the rate at which the behaviour of the workers changed when they got to know that the bill 'of my damaged car was to be paid by S.I.C. Instead of replacing the parts damaged with new ones as stated in the bill to S.I.C., they merely repaired or renovated them,' Mr. Bossman said. Mr. Bossman claimed that his shock absorbers, bumpers and brakes which the fitters claimed to have been replaced with new ones were in fact just straightened or cleaned and placed back. I asked him whether they had claimed the money from S.I.C. He answered in the positive and said although the damage was estimated by S.I.C. at ¢1,982.29, the fitters claimed about ¢2,000.00".

But before this conversation between the reporter and Bossman, the former said he looked for the managing director of the plaintiff company without success and came to this Bossman and inquired about the managing director. Mr. Bossman's reply was this "You will never find the director here: in fact there is none as far as I know."

The plaintiffs are saying that by those words the defendants meant and was understood to mean that the management of the plaintiff company was dishonest and fraudulent, that they did not render efficient, competent and prompt service to their customers and the service rendered to Mr. Bossman was not up to standard.

The defendants filed a statement of defence and in paragraph (4) s