Guardian

In the High Court of Lagos State,

In the Ikeja Judicial Division,

Before Justice Y.O. Idowu (Mrs.),

Sitting at Court No. 8

General Civil Division, Ikeja,

On Wednesday, November 2012

Suit No. ID/1487/2008

Between:

Dr. Hakim Akinlade (claimant)

and

Kunle Ladejoji

Mr. M.A. Abdulahi

Mrs. Tola Gbogboade (defendants).

Judgment.

THE following documents in the list of documents filed were admitted as exhibits:

No. 1 as Exhibit A1, No. 2 as Exhibit K, 7 as Exhibit L, 8 as Exhibit M, 9 as Exhibit N, 5 as Exhibit E1, 6 as Exhibit G1.

By the written statement on oath, the 1st defendant witness stated that sometime in May 2007, the claimant visited the office of the 1st defendant to make enquiry about the procedure for the audit of the association’s accounts since he was new to the system and he was told to get all the association’s records ready for audit exercise but nothing was forthcoming till sometime in July 2007 when some records were brought in for the exercise.

That the records were incomplete and thus the audit was suspended and the claimant informed via a letter dated July 25, 2007.

That on August 1, 2007, at about 6 p.m. after the close of work, the claimant came to the defendant’s office to enquire about the audit to which he was reminded of the letter of July 25, 2007, which he had not responded to.

The witness stated that he did not say anything about the annual general meeting or its date.

That the firm has an established procedure of dealing with audited accounts. First a draft, clearly stamped so, is sent to the client for discussion of all outstanding issues on the accounts.

He stated that the account circulated at the annual general meeting is not authentic as it can neither be described as draft nor the final accounts which should have had the report of the auditors’ page and signed by the same auditors.

He stated that at the commencement of audit, the claimant actually demanded 14th months accounts as at June 30, 2007, and they prefer that till April 30, 2007.

That on October 2, 2008, a second draft copy of the accounts as at April 30, 2007, was forwarded to the claimant.

That on February 13, 2008, an investigation team of the medical association led by Dr. Omotayo visited our office to conduct investigation of our firm’s audit of the association where we denied originating it or knowing anything about it as it did not comply with our standard.

Finally, that the letter of February 1, 2008, was written after the investigative panel left our office to the claimant, to put record straight and it was received in his office by Dr. Olowoselu Olusola on the same day. That the words in the said letter are factual and in their ordinary meaning.

Under cross-examination, the witness testified that Exhibits A1 and E1 have the same acknowledgement signatures, but that Exhibit G1 was received by Dr. Olowoselu Olusola at about 6.28 p.m. on February14, 2008.

She stated that close of work is subjective and 6.28 p.m. is not necessarily after close of work.

She went on that she communicated orally with the claimant in respect of the AGM. That she asked for some documents and when they were not forthcoming, she wrote the claimant.

That the audit was for the year 2007 and that she knew it was for the AGM but did not know when it was to hold.

She stated that she submitted 2 draft reports during the course of the year that is Exhibit B and C, for discussion.

She stated that the Nigeria medical Association had an AGM last year and the audit firm prepared audit report for 2010 but that between 2007 to 2010, there was no audit report.

That she didn’t know the average expenditure of the NMA. That Exhibit F is not an audited account and Exhibits F, B, C are prone to errors, B and C being drafts and F not stamped.

The Defendant’s written address is dated March 29, 2012, wherein learned counsel proffered as the issue for determination: whether the letter of February 14, 2008, is defamatory when there is no malice and or publication to a third party.

Counsel opened his argument by stating that it is the claimant’s claim that the court should declare that the 2006-2007 audit account circulated at the AGM was not forged by him and that it was prepared by the defendants.

Counsel submitted that for an audited account to be so-called, it has to be properly prepared and emanating from the appropriate person and that as the document did not fulfill these conditions, its presentation as an audited account from the defendant is a forgery.