Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Court of Appeal has fixed October 13 for the hearing of two appeals filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, against a judgment that found them liable for defaming two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS).
The hearing was stalled on Friday because Oluwadare’s appeal was not yet ripe, owing to the late filing of his brief of argument.
Both appeals challenge the May 5 judgment of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which held that SERAP and Oluwadare defamed the officials in a false publication.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, presided over by Justice Danlami Senchi, first heard SERAP’s appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026.
However, when Oluwadare’s appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1115/2026, was called, his lawyer, Hannah Ayanwale, told the court it was not ripe for hearing.
She said the appellant filed his brief on Thursday and served it on the respondents in court on Friday morning, shortly before the court sat.
The Justices expressed displeasure at the development. They set aside the proceedings already conducted on SERAP’s appeal, holding that the two were sister appeals arising from the same judgment and should be heard together.
The court adjourned both appeals to October 13. It ordered the respondents to file their brief on October 12 and the appellants to file a reply brief before the next sitting.
The judgment on appeal
The suit, marked CV/4547/2024, was filed by two DSS officials, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele. They accused SERAP and Oluwadare of falsely claiming, in publications on the group’s website and social media platforms, that the officials invaded its Abuja office on September 9, 2024, and harassed its staff.
In his May 5 judgment, Justice Yusuf held that the claimants led sufficient evidence to establish all the ingredients of defamation. He rejected the defence of justification raised by SERAP and Oluwadare, ruling that they failed to prove the publications were not based on falsehood. He awarded ₦100 million in damages.
SERAP’s grounds of appeal
In its appeal, SERAP argues that the judgment was legally and procedurally flawed. Its Appellant’s Brief of Argument, filed by Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), raises 24 grounds challenging the finding of liability, the damages awarded and the consequential orders.
The group says the central question is whether the claimants proved through credible evidence that the publications referred to them.
“The central issue in this appeal is whether the respondents established by credible evidence that the publications complained of referred to them,” SERAP said. “The publications did not name the respondents, and the descriptions relied upon were general physical descriptions which did not, without more, identify the particular individuals who brought the action.”
The publications followed SERAP’s call on President Bola Tinubu to investigate alleged corruption at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and reverse fuel price increases. SERAP had alleged that DSS officers entered its Abuja office without proper notice. It described two of them as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man”.
SERAP argues that neither publication identified the claimants by name, rank, designation, office or photograph. It also says they called no independent witness to show that an ordinary member of the public read the publications and understood them to refer to the two officers.
“No independent witness was called to establish the alleged identification, while the social-media reactions relied upon by the respondents were not tendered in evidence,” the group said.
SERAP further accuses the trial court of supplying the missing identification link by relying, among other things, on its own observation of the claimants’ physical appearance during proceedings.
“The trial Court could not properly supply by its own observation the essential identifying link which the respondents were required to establish by evidence,” SERAP said. “The issue was whether the publications identified the respondents when they were published, not whether the respondents happened to fit the descriptions when they appeared before the Court.”
SERAP also describes the ₦100 million damages as excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence. It says the trial court relied on claims that the publication affected the officers “mentally and psychologically” and had “gone viral”, without evidence of the extent of publication or of specific professional, financial or reputational injury.
