LEGAL PRINCIPLE: TORT LAW – Defamation – Qualified Privilege – Effect of Inaccuracies
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
If the report be as a whole a substantially fair and correct account of the proceedings, a few slight inaccuracies will not deprive it of protection. But where the inaccuracies are of a substantial kind, there is no immunity. A report in a daily newspaper is not to be judged by the same strict standard of accuracy as a report coming from the hand of a trained lawyer. Unless a fair and reasonable latitude is given, there would be no safety in reporting the proceedings in courts of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kalgo, JSC, in Emeagwara v. Star Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. & Ors (2000) NLC-1681994(SC) at pp. 4, 23; Paras A–B, B–C.
"If the report be as a whole a substantially fair and correct account of the proceedings, a few slight inaccuracies will not deprive it of protection. But where the inaccuracies are of a substantial kind, there is no immunity. A report in a daily newspaper is not to be judged by the same strict standard of accuracy as a report coming from the hand of a trained lawyer. Unless a fair and reasonable latitude is given, there would be no safety in reporting the proceedings in courts of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Slight inaccuracies do not defeat qualified privilege if the report is substantially fair and correct. Substantial inaccuracies destroy immunity. Newspaper reports are judged by reasonable latitude, not strict legal precision. Overly strict standards would chill reporting of judicial proceedings, harming public interest. The privilege balances accurate reporting with practical realities of journalism. The test is whether the average reader would receive a substantially correct impression of the proceedings. Minor errors in names, dates, or non-material details do not vitiate privilege. Material misrepresentations or omissions do.