Appeal Court shifts SERAP’s N100m defamation appeals to October 13

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has adjourned until October 13 proceedings in two appeals challenging a judgment ordering the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project to pay N100 million in damages to two Department of State Services officials.

The appeals were filed separately by SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, against the May 5 judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court.

The High Court had found SERAP liable for defaming DSS officers Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele over publications relating to an incident at SERAP’s Abuja office in September 2024.

The two DSS officials brought the action in their personal capacities.

Earlier appeal proceedings voided

A three-member Court of Appeal panel led by Justice Danlami Senchi initially heard SERAP’s appeal and reserved judgment.

However, those proceedings were subsequently set aside after the court was informed that Oluwadare’s separate appeal, which arose from the same facts, was not yet ready to be heard.

His legal team told the court that its brief had only been served on the respondents shortly before proceedings began.

The appellate court consequently decided that the two related appeals should be heard together and vacated the earlier proceedings.

The respondents were directed to file their arguments by October 12, with the appellants expected to respond before the October 13 hearing.

What the lower court ordered

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court awarded N100 million in damages to the two DSS officials.

The court also ordered SERAP to pay N1 million in litigation costs, publish apologies through specified media platforms and pay annual post-judgment interest on the damages until the judgment sum is settled.

The dispute arose after SERAP published statements alleging that DSS operatives had unlawfully entered its Abuja office and harassed personnel.

SERAP has rejected the lower court’s findings and is asking the Court of Appeal to set the judgment aside, arguing that the decision contains legal and evidential errors.

The appeal remains pending, meaning the Court of Appeal has not yet ruled on whether the High Court judgment should stand.