Precious Nwonu, Enugu
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has adjourned until October 13 the hearing of two appeals arising from a defamation case in which the Federal Capital Territory High Court ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project to pay N100m in damages to two Department of State Services officials.
A three-member panel led by Justice Danlami Senchi fixed the new date on Friday after discovering that a related appeal filed by Kolawole Oluwadare was not ready for hearing.
The panel consequently reversed its earlier decision to reserve judgment in SERAP’s appeal, ruling that both cases should be heard together because they originated from the same judgment of the lower court.
The appeals, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026 and CA/ABJ/CV/1105/2026, were filed by SERAP and Oluwadare, respectively, against Sarah John and two others.
SERAP is challenging a May 5, 2026, judgment by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court, which found the organisation liable for defamation over publications concerning an alleged invasion of its Abuja office by DSS officials in September 2024.
During Friday’s proceedings, counsel to Oluwadare, Hannah Ayanwale, told the court that the second appeal was not ready because the appellant’s brief had been filed only the previous day. She also said a document had inadvertently been omitted from the additional record of appeal.
Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, who represented the first and second respondents in the related appeal, argued that the case amounted to an abuse of court process, noting that the matters had been heard jointly at the trial court.
He said the respondents had assumed the appeal was no longer active because the appellant’s counsel had not filed the necessary processes within the expected time. Kehinde apologised for not filing an application to challenge the appeal earlier and sought time to submit the respondents’ briefs.
Paul Ngbeoma, counsel to the third respondent, also apologised to the court, stating that his client would participate in the proceedings without filing additional processes.
The panel criticised the respondents’ lawyers for failing to alert the court that the appeal was not ready before the matter was called.
Justice Senchi stressed that only the court could decide whether an appeal should be removed from its list, adding that the service of the appellant’s brief showed that the case remained active.
The court directed the first and second respondents to file their briefs by Monday, October 12, while the appellant was ordered to submit a reply by Tuesday morning.
Explaining its decision to vacate the earlier order reserving judgment in SERAP’s appeal, the panel said counsel had not informed it that both appeals arose from the same lower court judgment. It held that the second appeal’s status made it necessary to hear the cases together.
The dispute followed publications made by SERAP on September 9, 2024, alleging that DSS officials unlawfully entered its Abuja office after the organisation called on President Bola Tinubu to investigate alleged corruption at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and reverse increases in petrol prices.
The publications reportedly described the officers as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man” without naming them.
The two officials subsequently sued SERAP for defamation, leading to the FCT High Court’s decision to award N100m in damages against the organisation and order an apology.
In its appeal, SERAP challenged the finding of liability, the damages awarded and the consequential orders made by the trial court.
The organisation argued that the claimants were not identified by name, rank, designation, office or photograph in the publications and that no independent witness established that readers understood the descriptions to refer specifically to them.
SERAP also questioned the trial court’s reliance on its own observation of the officials’ physical appearance to establish their identification.
It further argued that claims of psychological harm and damage to reputation were not supported by sufficient evidence of specific professional, financial or reputational losses.
The organisation is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment.
The appellate court is scheduled to hear both appeals on October 13.
