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 the 26th of April following the absence of counsel to the plaintiff in court.
Appearing in the suit for the 2nd to the 7th defendant, Oladimeji Adebayo and Nnenna Eke notified the court that they had filed a notice of preliminary objection since 11th October, 2022 alongside their statement of defense, but was yet to be served any response from the plaintiff, Seplat Energy PLC.
The presiding judge, Justice C. Nnodum, who stated this on Friday said that having ascertained that the plaintiff and it’s lawyers were not in court, adjourned the case to the 26th of April for hearing.
According to the Judge: “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 2nd to the 7th 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 defense and preliminary objection since October 2022.
Oladimeji who disclosed to Newsmen shortly after the adjournment said that, “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 raise 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 2nd to the 7th 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 defense, they have told the court that the said publication was done in public interest and intended for public good.