The Court of Appeal in Abuja has vacated its earlier order reserving judgment in SERAP’s N100 million defamation appeal, directing that a fresh hearing date be fixed for two related cases.
A panel led by Justice Danlami Senchi issued the directive on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, ordering the return of both case files to the Presiding Justice of the Abuja Division for a new hearing date to be communicated to the parties.
The appeals, CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026 and CA/ABJ/CV/1105/2026, were filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, against Sarah John and two others.
The dispute arose from a May 5, 2026, judgment by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, presided over by Justice Yusuf Halilu, which awarded N100 million in damages against SERAP over publications concerning an alleged visit by Department of State Services (DSS) operatives to its Abuja office in September 2024.
The trial court also ordered apologies, N1 million in litigation costs and 10 per cent annual interest on the damages until payment.
READ ALSO: Appeal Court Bars UN Rapporteurs, Columbia University From SERAP Case
During Tuesday’s proceedings, Oluwadare’s counsel, Oluwatosin Adesioye, withdrew an application seeking to amend reliefs relating to additional appeal records and an extension of time to challenge the lower court’s decision. The court struck out the application after Justice Senchi advised counsel to review its prayers.
In SERAP’s appeal, counsel Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction and disputed the identification of a claimant. He argued that the judgment favoured Sarah John over a publication referring to a person identified as Sarah David, contending that the physical description in the publication was insufficient to establish identity.
Counsel for the first and second respondents, O. S. Kehinde, urged the court to dismiss the appeal, arguing that SERAP had failed to prove the two names referred to different individuals.
He maintained that a person could be identified from a publication without being expressly named if people familiar with them recognised the description. Counsel for the third respondent did not present arguments.
The panel also considered applications by Columbia University, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, and the Southern Africa Litigation Centre to participate as amici curiae, or friends of the court. The applicants withdrew their requests after the court indicated their participation was unnecessary.
The appeals will now await a fresh hearing date, with the trial court’s judgment remaining subject to the appellate process.