"I now come to the issue of qualified privilege.

There must exist, a common interest between the maker of the statement and the person to whom it was made. Reciprocity of interest is an essential element in the law of qualified privilege. Adam v. Ward (1917) A.C. 334. White v. J. & F. Stone (1934) 2 K.B. 827 Pullman v. Hill (1891) 1 Q.B. 528.

The facts relied upon by the maker must be true; a mere belief will not sustain the defence. Hedoitch v. Macllwaine (1894) 2 Q C. 54.

The question then is: Was Exhibit 7 i.e. the Disclaimer, published so as to set in motion the disciplinary machinery which the statutory body charge with the discipline of member has?

From the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 and P.W.3 this is not the case.

An allegation of professional misconduct implies an offence against the rules and practice of the particular profession. In this case the alleged misconduct can only be sustained after due investigation in which the Appellant accused of professional misconduct was given an opportunity to defend himself.

No personal, not even a professional body can be allowed to make such a grave accusation without due investigation. To ground such a grave accusation on reasonable belief of the person making the accusations is to give a licence to malign others.

It is not unusual to deprecate a man's conduct but vilification should not form part of a disclaimer.

Those who publish disclaimer should be cautious not to infringe on the rights of others. Where caution is thrown into the wind recklessness is enthroned".

Per OLATAWURA, JSC in ADEMOLA ATOYEBI VS WILLIAM ODUDU (1990) 3 N.S.C.C. 334 at 345