The planned hearing by the Court of Appeal, Abuja of the appeals filed the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare was stalled on Friday owing to the appellants’ late filing of their briefs.
The two appeals, filed by SERAP and Oluwadare, are against the May 5 judgment of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), in which it was held that the group and its Deputy Director defamed two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) through a false publication they made on September 10, 2024.
At Friday’s proceedings, the first appeal, marked: CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026 filed by SERAP, was heard by a three-member panel of the appellate court, presided over by Justice Danlami Senchi.
When the second appeal, marked: CA/ABJ/CV/1105/2026 filed by Oluwadare was called, appellant’s lawyer, Hannah Ayanwale told the court that the appeal was not ripe for hearing as the appellant just filed his brief on Thursday and served same on respondents in the court on Friday morning just before the court began sitting.
The information infuriated the Justices, who were uncomfortable with Ayanwale’s failure to inform the court earlier that her client’s appeal, which is a sister appeal to the one filed by SERAP, was not ripe for hearing.
The court however, elected to set aside the proceedings earlier conducted on the first appeal on the grounds that since they are sister appeals that emanated from the same judgment, they ought to be heard together.
It then adjourned hearing of the two appeals till October 13 and ordered the respondents to filed their brief on October 12 and for the appellant to file a reply brief before the court sits on the next adjourned date.
The May 5 judgment, delivered by Justice Halilu Yusuf of the High Court of the FCT, was on the suit marked: CV/4547/2024 filed by the DSS officials – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – who accused SERAP and Oluwadare of making false claims in publications on the group’s website and social media platforms that the claimants invaded their Abuja office on September 9, 2024 and subjected them to harassment.
Justice Yusuf held among others that claimants led sufficient evidence that effectively established all the ingredients of defamation.
Justice Yusuf rejected that defence of justification raised by SERAP and Oluwadare on the grounds that they failed to provide evidence that their publications were not based on falsehood.
The judge noted that the words like invasion, forceful entry and harassment were used inaccurately, the defendants having admitted at trial that the DSS officials did not forcefully enter into SERAP’s premises and did not brandish any weapon
He held that the publications made by the defendants injured the reputation of the claimants in their professional capacity and standing in the society.
Justice Yusuf said: “Having been unable to establish invasion and harassment, the defence of justification fails. There is no doubt that the publication affected the claimants mentally and psychologically.”
The judge said, going forward, it was necessary for care and due diligence on the part of SERAP and its officials before releasing information to the public.
He added that in the exercise of their right to tweet and send information out, the defendants should be aware of the rights of others, particularly as it relates to government agencies and their officials.
The judge dismissed the objection raised by the defendants against the competence of the suit and held that the claimants possessed the requisite locus standi to file the suit over which the court has the jurisdiction to entertain.
He held that as against the defendants’ argument, the claimants must not be named in the publication complained about for defamation to be established.
Justice Yusuf noted that from when the claimants complained about the inaccuracy of the publications, the defendants failed to take any steps to pull down the injurious publication.
He proceeded to adjudge the publications as defamatory and awarded damages of N100million against the defendants in addition to N1m as cost of prosecuting the suit.
The judge also ordered the defendants to publish a public apology on SERAP’s website, X handle, two national daily newspapers and two television stations.
He held that the judgment sum shall attract 10 percent per annum from the date of the judgment until the sum is paid by the defendants.
