Bartholomew Umeyor v Innocent IBE
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Warby |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 862 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ14D04721 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 20 April 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 862 (QB)
Mr Justice Warby
Case No: HQ14D04721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mohammed Bashir (instructed by SLA Solicitors) for the Claimant
Adrian Davies (instructed under the Bar Public Access scheme) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 12–14 April 2016
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
INTRODUCTION
This is the trial of a claim for slander. Slander claims are very unusual today. Many communications that would have been spoken in the past are now text-based, so that any defamation claim would be in libel. But slander claims have always been rare. There are probably many reasons for that, but among them are the difficulties sometimes encountered in proving the exact words spoken; the general principle that slander is not actionable without proof of special damage; and the fact that the range of exceptions to that rule is limited; and the fact that spoken words are, as a rule, less likely than written publications to cause serious harm to reputation. The last three of these factors are no doubt inter-related. All four factors are relevant in the present case, which illustrates several of the difficulties to which slander claims can give rise.
THE CASE IN A NUTSHELL
The claimant and the defendant are both of Nigerian origin. Each was at all material times a member of the Mbaise Union (The Union). Mbaise is the name of a region and of a people in Igboland, in the South East of Nigeria. The Union is an unincorporated association created by members of the Mbaise community in the UK, which meets in General Meeting on the fourth Sunday of each month to discuss issues affecting the community, and other Union business.
The claimant complains of words he alleges were spoken by the defendant at a General Meeting of the Union on 28 September 2014 (the Meeting). The claimant's case is that the words used, in his absence but to a substantial number of members of the Union, accused him of using the money of the Union to buy prostitutes in Nigeria. The defendant admits that he spoke about the use of the Union's money by the claimant, but he denies that he made the statement complained of. He denies that such a statement would be actionable as a slander in any event, or that what he said caused serious harm to reputation. He further contends that he spoke on an occasion of qualified privilege. In response the claimant accuses him of malice.
In fairness to the claimant I should perhaps spell out that there is no suggestion by the defendant that the claimant did spend the Union's money on prostitutes, or use prostitutes; and I should say that in another defamation claim by the claimant, to which I shall refer, this court has concluded that the claimant dealt with the Union's money honestly. The truth of the allegation which the defendant is said to have made is not in issue at this trial.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS
The issues in relation to liability are, in summary:-
(1) whether the claimant has proved that the defendant made the statement complained of; if so
(2) whether the claimant has proved that the statement is actionable as a slander; if so
(3) whether the defendant has established a defence of qualified privilege; and if so
(4) whether the publication was malicious.
I have concluded that the claimant's case fails at stage (1), and that it would in any event have failed at stage (2). I have also concluded that the Meeting was an occasion of qualified privilege, to which the defendant's words were relevant, and that no case of malice has been made out. The claim would have failed on those grounds if the claimant had passed stages (1) and (2). For all these reasons, which are explained below, the claim will be dismissed.
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND IN MORE DETAIL
The following facts are not in dispute between the parties or, to the limited extent they are disputed, are made out on the evidence before me.
The parties
The claimant is a past President of the Union, having held that post for more than 5 years. At the time of the Meeting he had ceased to be President, in circumstances I shall outline later. The claimant was however, at the time of the Meeting, a member of the People's Democratic Party (PDP), a political party in Nigeria about which I have very little further evidence, and he was the Party's Ward Chairman in Nnarambia Ward, Ahiazu, Nigeria.
The defendant is a Christian minister, ordained in Holland in 2012, and the co-ordinator of the United Nigerian Chaplaincy in the UK. He has been a member of the Mbaise Union for over 20 years. He was for many years a welfare officer of the Union, and also of the Ahiazu Progressive Community (APC) UK.
The funds entrusted to the claimant
In 2012 members of the Union collected money to be sent to Nigeria for a medical mission, to support those too poor to pay for medical treatment. The mission was primarily run by the American branch, or sister branch, of the Union, but the Union agreed to provide money to support its aims. The claimant agreed to take the sum of £2,500 to Nigeria for that purpose. To that end, the Union paid the claimant that sum by cheque. He paid the money into his personal bank account. That was a process with which the Union was quite content.
On 4 April 2012 the claimant went to a foreign exchange bureau by the name of Dolphin Global Services (Dolphin), and paid them £2,500 on the basis that they would pay the naira equivalent, less their commission, into a bank account of his in Nigeria. That is what they did. The net sum in sterling was £2,420. Later, in Nigeria, the claimant spent the naira equivalent of that sum discharging a hotel bill incurred by the American mission.
Two documents were generated by these transactions: a receipt provided to the claimant by Dolphin (the Money Transfer document), and a paying in slip from the hotel in Nigeria (the Deposit Slip). The Money Transfer document had two odd features: it bore the name of Barry Grandom, and it was dated 11 April 2011, a year before the date of its creation. The claimant was and is unable to explain these oddities, beyond saying that it was the clerk who wrote these things on the Money Transfer document. Whether any Barry Grandom exists is unknown. The Deposit Slip showed that money had been paid to the hotel, but not why.
Concerns are raised
The claimant was asked by the Union to account for what had become of the money. He accepted in his evidence to me that the Treasurer, Mr Felix Nwakamma, asked for an account, and was concerned about the matter, and not satisfied with the documentation. He accepted that it was not surprising that Mr Nwakamma was not satisfied with the Money Transfer document. The claimant would not accept that anyone else asked, or was concerned or dissatisfied about his account of events. I find however that it was a matter of concern to others. This much is perfectly clear from other evidence.
The claimant attended a meeting of the Executive of the Union on 16 March 2013 at which he was asked questions about the use of the Union's money to pay the hotel bill. He refused to answer questions about this. He was removed as President in about October 2013. On 27 October 2013 he petitioned for his reinstatement. In a document dated 14 March 2014 Mr Nwakamma responded to the petition. He wrote of "dodgy receipts" and "forgery". The claimant sued Mr Nwakamma for libel in respect of this document.
The Meeting
The claimant's libel action against Mr Nwakamma was a matter on the agenda at the general meeting of the Union on 28 September 2014 held in the St Pancras Community Centre in Camden, London NW1, The meeting was attended by some 150 people, of whom 26 are identified by name in the Particulars of Claim. These included the claimant's wife, Rose Umeyor, and four other individuals who gave evidence to me.
The defendant addressed the meeting, in the Ibo language, and spoke about the claimant's dealings with the Union's funds. Of some relevance to the dispute about what he said are the contents of the minutes, drawn up later by the General Secretary Mr Echewoada Nwawudu. The minutes record the following:
" 3 Agenda items:
3.1 The court case: The issue of the court case was raised and discussed. TT said he saw himself as representing Mbaise and the case was going where it was going; he said the money was remitted to pay for the hotel and the receipt was dated 2011 when the Medical Mission was in 2012. He said Mr Umeyor should be asked to remove the case and let members resolve the matter. TP said the Executive had asked Mr B. Umeyor to come and give an explanation and some elders had tried to resolve the matter; but until Mr Umeyor was present he did not want not discussed further."
Under "Any other business" there was reference to "The comments by Rev I. Ibe":
"5.1 The comments by Rev. I. Ibe: Rev. I. Ibe said our constitution said we should suspend Mr. B Umeyor; and also we should get receipts. (Later) TP said Rev. I. Ibe had told him that someone had attacked him. Rev. I. Ibe spoke about the matter. TP said it was a verbal attack. TP said Rev. I. Ibe had raised irrelevant issues. (Later) Members criticised Rev.I. Ibe's earlier comments as being inappropriate and insulting. (Later) TT explained what had happened with the involvement of the police (called by Rev....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rachel Riley v Mike Sivier
...bad reputation in the sector: Gatley on Libel and Slander, 13th ed., 34.081–34.091. Rumours are not admissible: Umeyor v Innocent Ibe [2016] EWHC 862 (QB), Warby J, [78]. x) Evidence of damage to the claimant's reputation done by earlier publications of the same matter is legally irrelevan......
-
Petr Aven v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
...offence that is expressly or impliedly imputed by the words complained of: see my discussion of this exception in Umeyor v Ibe [2016] EWHC 862 (QB) 40 In this instance, however, any attempt to read across from defamation would clearly be misleading. In the slander context the reason, or at......
-
Musst Holdings Ltd v Astra Asset Management UK Ltd Astra Asset Management LLP
...the individuals concerned gave rise to a properly arguable case that the words had been spoken as alleged. 601 In Umeyor v Ibe [2016] EWHC 862 (QB) Warby J (as he then was), at para. 1, remarked on the rarity of slander claims. He suggested several reasons why this was likely to be the cas......
-
ABC (A Mother) v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
...whether defamatory, defences and damages: see Best v Charter Medical of England Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1588, [2002] EMLR 18 [7] (Keene LJ), Umeyor v Ibe [2016] EWHC 862 (QB) [39]. Put another way, these requirements protect freedom of speech by requiring a claimant to prove strictly the factu......