The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday adjourned hearing of appeals filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, after the late filing of Oluwadare’s brief disrupted proceedings.

The appeals challenge a May 5 judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which found SERAP and Oluwadare liable for defaming two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) through publications made in September 2024.

At Friday’s proceedings, a three-member panel of the appellate court, presided over by Justice Danlami Senchi, commenced hearing SERAP’s appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026.
However, when Oluwadare’s appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1105/2026, was called, his lawyer, Hannah Ayanwale, told the court that the case was not ripe for hearing.

She explained that her client had filed his brief on Thursday and served it on the respondents on Friday morning, shortly before the court began sitting.
The disclosure angered the justices, who expressed displeasure that Ayanwale had failed to inform the court earlier that her client’s appeal was not ready for hearing, particularly as it was a sister appeal to SERAP’s case arising from the same judgment.

The panel subsequently set aside the proceedings already conducted in SERAP’s appeal, holding that the two related appeals should be heard together because they arose from the same judgment.
It adjourned hearing of both appeals until October 13 and directed the respondents to file their briefs by October 12. The appellant is also expected to file a reply brief before the next sitting.
The appeals stem from a suit, marked CV/4547/2024, instituted by two DSS officials, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, against SERAP and Oluwadare.

The officials accused the organisation and its deputy director of publishing false claims on SERAP’s website and social media platforms that DSS personnel invaded the group’s Abuja office on September 9, 2024, and subjected its officials to harassment.

In his May 5 judgment, Justice Halilu Yusuf held that the claimants had presented sufficient evidence to establish the ingredients of defamation.
The judge rejected the defence of justification raised by SERAP and Oluwadare, ruling that they had failed to provide evidence to support their publications.

He noted that terms such as “invasion”, “forceful entry” and “harassment” had been used inaccurately, adding that the defendants admitted during the trial that the DSS officials neither forced their way into SERAP’s premises nor brandished weapons.
According to the judge, the publications injured the claimants’ reputations in their professional capacities and standing in society.

“Having been unable to establish invasion and harassment, the defence of justification fails. There is no doubt that the publication affected the claimants mentally and psychologically,” Yusuf said.
The judge said SERAP and its officials needed to exercise care and due diligence before releasing information to the public.

He added that while exercising their right to publish information on social media, the defendants should respect the rights of others, particularly government agencies and their officials.
Yusuf dismissed the defendants’ objection to the competence of the suit, holding that the claimants had the requisite legal standing, or locus standi, to institute the action and that the court had jurisdiction to hear it.
He also rejected the argument that the claimants had to be expressly named in the disputed publication for defamation to be established.

The judge further observed that the defendants had failed to remove the publications after the claimants complained about their alleged inaccuracy.
He consequently found the publications defamatory and awarded ₦100 million in damages against SERAP and Oluwadare, in addition to ₦1 million in costs.
The court also ordered the defendants to publish a public apology on SERAP’s website and X account, in two national daily newspapers and on two television stations.
Yusuf further directed that the judgment sum attract annual interest of 10 per cent from the date of judgment until it is paid.