Nigeria Court of Appeal: SERAP N100m Defamation Appeal Adjourned

• The Court of Appeal in Abuja adjourned two defamation appeals, including one from SERAP, until October 13, 2026.
• SERAP's appeal challenges an FCT High Court judgment ordering it to pay N100 million in damages to two DSS officials.
• The court vacated its initial decision to reserve judgment in SERAP's appeal because a second, related appeal by Kolawole Oluwadare was not ready for hearing.
• Counsel for the second appeal admitted late filing of briefs and an omitted process, leading to the procedural delay.
• Justice Danlami Senchi emphasized that both appeals, stemming from the same lower court judgment, must be heard concurrently.

The panel clarified its decision to vacate the earlier order reserving judgment in SERAP’s appeal, stating that none of the counsel had brought to its attention the critical fact that both appeals originated from the same judgment of the lower court.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has postponed the hearing for two related appeals, including one from the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), until October 13, 2026. These appeals stem from a defamation judgment by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, which mandated SERAP to pay N100 million in damages to two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS).

A three-member special panel, led by Justice Danlami Senchi, initially intended to reserve judgment in SERAP's appeal, identified as CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026. However, this decision was subsequently vacated after the panel discovered that a second appeal, CA/ABJ/CV/1105/2026, filed by Kolawole Oluwadare and also originating from the same lower court judgment, was not prepared for proceedings. This procedural oversight necessitated the adjournment of both matters to ensure they could be heard concurrently.

The underlying legal challenge concerns a judgment delivered on May 5, 2026, by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court. This ruling found SERAP liable for defamation due to publications related to an alleged visit by DSS officials to its Abuja office in September 2024. SERAP is contesting this verdict, asserting that the individuals were not explicitly named in the publications and that the claimants failed to present credible evidence to establish that the descriptions used specifically referred to them.

Both appeals, one initiated by SERAP and the other by Kolawole Oluwadare, are directed against Sarah John and two other parties. The core of SERAP's appeal is to overturn the FCT High Court's decision that imposed the N100 million defamation damages, arguing against the basis of their alleged liability.

During the recent Court of Appeal session, the panel had initially reserved judgment in SERAP's appeal, with a date for pronouncement to be communicated later. However, when the second appeal, brought by Kolawole Oluwadare, was called, his counsel, Hannah Ayanwale, informed the court that it was not ready for hearing. She explained that the appellant’s brief had only been filed the previous day, and a crucial process had been inadvertently omitted from the additional record of appeal, which was also submitted just one day prior.

Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, representing the first and second respondents in Oluwadare's appeal, contended that the appeal constituted an abuse of court process, noting that the matter had been heard jointly at the lower court. He admitted that the respondents had presumed the appeal was withdrawn due to the appellant's counsel's delay in filing necessary processes, apologizing for not challenging it earlier and requesting time to file the respondents’ briefs. Paul Ngbeoma, counsel for the third respondent, also apologized, stating his client would participate without filing further processes. Justice Senchi criticized the respondents’ counsel for not informing the court sooner about the second appeal's unreadiness, especially since it was already listed. He emphasized that only the court could declare an appeal removed, not the parties, and that the recent service of the brief confirmed the appeal's active status. Consequently, the court directed the first and second respondents to file their briefs by October 12, with the appellant to file a reply by the morning of October 13.

The panel clarified its decision to vacate the earlier order reserving judgment in SERAP’s appeal, stating that none of the counsel had brought to its attention the critical fact that both appeals originated from the same judgment of the lower court. Justice Senchi underscored that the unreadiness of the second appeal directly impacted the decision to reserve judgment in SERAP's case, making it imperative for both matters to be heard together.

This ruling highlights the Court of Appeal's insistence on procedural diligence and the coordinated handling of interconnected legal challenges. The requirement for all related appeals to be ready for hearing simultaneously ensures judicial efficiency and consistency, particularly when they arise from a single lower court determination. Both appeals are now scheduled to proceed on October 13, 2026, for a comprehensive hearing.

Lawyers should note the Court of Appeal's emphasis on procedural diligence and the coordination of related appeals stemming from a single lower court judgment. This case highlights that failure to properly inform the court about the readiness of all linked matters can lead to adjournments and the vacating of previously reserved judgments, impacting case timelines and requiring careful management of appellate processes.

Source: Original reporting via Punch