Follow Us on Google
From George Onyejiuwa, Owerri
Owerri High Court judge, Justice C. Nnodum, has adjourned the defamation suit brought against the Persecond News Limited by Seplat Energy Plc to April 26, following the absence of counsel to the plaintiff in court.
Appearing in the suit for the second to the seventh defendant, Oladimeji Adebayo and Nnenna Eke notified the court that they had filed a notice of preliminary objection since October 11, 2022, alongside their statement of defence, but was yet to be served any response from the plaintiff, Seplat Energy PLC.
The presiding judge, Justice C. Nnodum, who stated this last Friday, said having ascertained that the plaintiff and its lawyers were not in court, adjourned the case to April 26 for hearing.
The judge said: “It must be ensured that hearing notice is served on all the parties in this suit.”
While accepting the adjournment, Oladimeji Adebayo, counsel to the second to the seventh defendants prayed the court to ensure that any response filed by Seplat should be served on them as they have yet not received any response from the plaintiff, despite having filed their defence and preliminary objection since October 2022.
Oladimeji, who disclosed to newsmen shortly after the adjournment, said, “Seplat had served a wreath of summon that the publication about the acquisition of Exxon Mobil was defamatory, but we have quickly notified the court in our preliminary objection that the court is in Owerri, and our client is in Abuja. Again, none of the issues in contention took place or happened in Owerri. These, therefore, raised the question of jurisdiction.
“Furthermore, the name of the company sued by Seplat, ‘Persecond News Limited’, is not that of our client. You will notice, I entered appearance only for the second to the seventh defendants.
“As a matter of fact, Seplat sued a wrong company, as we have checked and the company they sued does not even exist in the Corporate Affairs Commission database.
“So, my client is not the person sued, and we have reflected that in our preliminary objection.”
He, however, added that as part of their defence, they have told the court that the said publication was done in public interest and intended for public good.
