The law is that every person has a right to the protection of his good name, reputation, and the estimation in which he stands in society. Therefore, whoever publishes anything injurious to that good name or reputation commits the tort of defamation.
Defamation, as a tort, whether as libel or slander, consists of the publication to a third person or persons of any false word or matter which tend to lower the person defamed in the estimation of(a) right-thinking members of society generally.
Moving on, while the bulk of cases that arise in defamation cases pertain to natural persons and juristic personalities, the legal question then becomes, can an individual who died in the course of his defamation suit still be entitled to monetary compensation?
The rule of law that governs this scenario is aptly captured by the Latin maxim: actio personalis moritur cum persona which means that a personal action dies with the person. In other words, the rule simply postulates that dead men are no longer legal persons in the eyes of the Law as they have laid down their legal personality at death.
This generally applies where the reliefs claimed by a deceased Claimant are personal to him. In such a circumstance the action cannot survive the deceased claimant who will solely and personally be the beneficiary.
In Abdulmumini v Mela (2017) LPELR-CA/J/18/2012, the deceased father of the Respondent, Alhaji Dahiru Mela, as plaintiff brought an action against the defendant that the words uttered by the latter, which was aired through Radio Gombe, was defamatory and has lowered the standing of the Plaintiff in the society he lives. He also claimed the sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) general damages for defamation of character and an additional sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) as exemplary damages.
At the conclusion of the suit, the trial court held that the defendant was liable and granted the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand for both the General and Exemplary damages. Irked by the said judgment, the appellant appealed the case. While this appeal was pending, the original respondent, Alhaji Dahiru Mela died and he was substituted with his daughter the incumbent Respondent, Aishatu Dahiru Mela, by the order of this Court made way back on 9th November, 2015.
Delivering the judgment, the court held that: “with the demise of the original respondent, the father of the present Respondent, the appeal is a nonstarter and it abates. The appeal is accordingly dismissed“.
However, it is pertinent that a cause of action will survive a deceased plaintiff when the action is not personal as evident in various statutes of each state. See Section 13(1) of the Administration of Estates Edict, Cap. 2, Vol. 1, Laws of the Bauchi State of Nigeria, 1991, applicable in Gombe State.
Personal actions have been listed to include only the following:- (a) Defamation. (b) Seduction. (c) Inducing one spouse to leave or remain apart from the other. (d) Claims for damages on the ground of adultery.
Hence in Ifejika v Oputa (2001) LPELR-CA/E/129/2000, the defendant-appellant (Ifejika) drilled a borehole in his premises which caused vibration and noise to the plaintiff-respondent. While the case was still on, the nonagenarian plaintiff died and was substituted by her daughter. The Court held nuisance was not a personal action, that the action didn’t abate with the death of the plaintiff and that the respondent was properly substituted in place of her mother.
Thank you for reading. See you next week.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 