mORGANABLE News/Crime& Courts
The panel subsequently directed the first and second respondents to file their briefs on or before Monday, October 12, while the appellant was ordered to file a reply by Tuesday morning.
KaNo—
The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday adjourned until October 13, 2026, the hearing of two appeals arising from a defamation suit in which the Federal Capital Territory High Court ordered the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project to pay N100m in damages to two officials of the Department of State Services.
The three-member special panel, presided over by Justice Danlami Senchi, vacated its earlier decision to reserve judgment in SERAP’s appeal after discovering that a second appeal arising from the same judgment of the lower court was not ready for hearing.
The appeals, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026 and CA/ABJ/CV/1105/2026, were filed by SERAP and Kolawole Oluwadare, respectively, against Sarah John and two others.
The adjournment followed proceedings during which the court expressed displeasure over the failure of counsel to draw its attention earlier to the status of the second appeal, despite its inclusion in the day’s proceedings.
At the commencement of Friday’s sitting, the panel had reserved judgment in SERAP’s appeal for a date to be communicated to the parties.
However, when the second appeal filed by Oluwadare came up for hearing, his counsel, Hannah Ayanwale, informed the court that the matter was not ripe for hearing because the appellant’s brief had only been filed the previous day.
Ayanwale also disclosed that a process had inadvertently been omitted from the additional record of appeal, which was equally filed on Thursday.
Her submission prompted the panel to reconsider its earlier decision to reserve judgment in SERAP’s appeal, given that both appeals arose from the same judgment delivered by the FCT High Court.
Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, who appeared for the first and second respondents in the second appeal, argued that the appeal amounted to an abuse of court process.
He explained that the matter had been heard jointly at the lower court, adding that the respondents had assumed the appeal had been withdrawn because the appellant’s counsel had failed to file the necessary processes within the expected period.
Kehinde apologised for not filing an application challenging the appeal earlier and requested additional time to submit the respondents’ briefs.
Similarly, Paul Ngbeoma, counsel for the third respondent in the second appeal, apologised to the court and informed the panel that his client would not file any processes but would participate in the hearing.
The panel, however, faulted the respondents’ counsel for failing to notify the court earlier that the second appeal was not ready, particularly because it had already been listed for proceedings.
Both counsel confirmed that the appellant’s brief in the second appeal had been served on them in court on Friday morning.
Responding to the submissions, Justice Senchi stressed that the court ought to have been informed of the situation before the matter was called.
He added that the service of the appellant’s brief indicated that the appeal remained active and could not simply be treated as withdrawn without a formal pronouncement by the court.
“It is not for you to say whether an appeal is removed. Only the court can make that pronouncement,” the judge said.
The panel subsequently directed the first and second respondents to file their briefs on or before Monday, October 12, while the appellant was ordered to file a reply by Tuesday morning.
Explaining its decision to vacate the earlier order reserving judgment in SERAP’s appeal, the panel said none of the counsel had drawn its attention to the fact that the two appeals originated from the same judgment of the lower court.
Justice Senchi held that the unreadiness of the second appeal affected the earlier decision to reserve judgment in SERAP’s matter, making it necessary for both appeals to be heard together.
The court consequently adjourned both appeals until October 13 for hearing.
The defamation dispute arose from publications made by SERAP on September 9, 2024, concerning an alleged visit by DSS officials to its Abuja office.
The organisation had alleged that the officials unlawfully entered its office after it called on President Bola Tinubu to investigate corruption allegations involving the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and reverse increases in fuel prices.
The publications reportedly described the officials as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man” without identifying them by name.
The two DSS officials subsequently instituted a defamation suit against SERAP, arguing that the publications were defamatory of them.
On May 5, 2026, Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court ruled against the organisation, finding it liable for defamation and ordering it to pay N100m in damages to the claimants.
SERAP, however, challenged the judgment at the Court of Appeal, contesting the findings of liability, the award of damages and consequential orders, including the directive requiring it to publish an apology.
In its brief of arguments, the organisation maintained that the claimants failed to establish that the publications referred specifically to them.
It argued that neither publication identified the officials by name, rank, designation, office or photograph, insisting that the descriptions used were insufficient to establish that the claimants were the individuals being referred to.
SERAP further contended that no independent witness testified that they had read the publications and understood them to refer to the two officials.
The organisation also challenged the trial court’s reliance on its own observation of the claimants’ physical appearance to determine whether the descriptions in the publications identified them.
According to SERAP, the lower court also relied on assertions that the publications had affected the claimants mentally and psychologically and had gone viral without sufficient evidence establishing specific professional, financial or reputational injury.
The organisation urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment and the orders made against it.
The October 13 hearing is expected to allow the panel to consider both appeals arising from the same judgment, following the completion of the outstanding court processes.
The outcome will determine the next stage of SERAP’s challenge to the N100m defamation award and the related orders issued by the FCT High Court.
