N101m Judgment Debt: SERAP appeal returned for reassignment as Lawyers withdraw applications

The Court of Appeal has ordered the return of a case file involving the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) for reassignment after proceedings in one of the organisation’s appeals against a N101 million defamation judgment were disrupted by problems with a legal application.

The development occurred on Tuesday during proceedings on appeals arising from a defamation judgment delivered in May by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in favour of two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS).

The proceedings also saw lawyers seeking to participate as amici curiae — friends of the court — withdraw their applications after the presiding judge questioned why they had approached the court without being invited.

According to the report, the court’s decision to return the case file for reassignment followed difficulties with an application filed by counsel to SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Ogundare.

The incident marked the second disruption in less than a week. On Friday, the panel had adjourned the matter until Tuesday after the organisation’s legal team failed to file an application required for the proceedings.

The three-member panel had reportedly travelled to Abuja to hear the appeal.

Judge Questions Application by Amici Curiae

A mild drama unfolded at the beginning of Tuesday’s proceedings when SERAP’s lead counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, informed the court that an application had been filed seeking permission for certain individuals and organisations to participate as amici curiae.

After the court allowed him to proceed, Professor Olarenwaju Fagbohun, SAN, identified himself as representing the University of Columbus through its Colombian Global Freedom of Expression Initiative, as well as United Nations special rapporteurs concerned with freedom of assembly, association, opinion and expression.

Fagbohun told the court that an application filed on October 12 sought permission for the applicants to assist the panel through independent submissions.

“We’re seeking the leave of this honourable court to participate in this appeal and assist the court with independent submissions,” he said.

However, the presiding judge, Justice Danlami Senchi, questioned why the applicants had approached the court without an invitation.

“Did the court invite you? Let’s be serious. This is the kind of image we create that is not good for us. We didn’t invite you,” the judge said.

Senchi maintained that the court had not requested assistance from the applicants and warned against lengthy submissions that could delay proceedings.

He explained that the court would consider assistance from non-parties when it deemed such intervention necessary, but questioned the basis for the application in the circumstances.

The judge subsequently asked Fagbohun to withdraw the application to allow the proceedings to move forward.

In response, the professor withdrew the application and apologised to the court.

The judge commended him for the decision, saying it would serve as a positive example to younger lawyers.

Mojirayo Ogunlana, who represented the Southern African Litigation Centre, also withdrew her application to participate as an amicus curiae, reportedly following the exchange.

Court Returns Second Appeal for Reassignment

After reserving judgment in the first appeal filed by SERAP’s incorporated trustees, the panel proceeded to consider a related appeal involving the organisation’s deputy director.

The second appeal had reportedly caused the previous Friday’s adjournment.

However, the panel expressed dissatisfaction with the way Ogundare’s application had been drafted and the manner in which the reliefs were presented.

Justice Senchi advised the lawyer to seek guidance from more experienced colleagues, criticising the formulation of the prayers before the court.

“Look at the way and manner you couched your prayers. We can’t grant this. You have to withdraw and refile it,” the judge said.

The judge further expressed frustration with the presentation, reminding counsel that the proceedings were before a court of record.

The panel eventually directed that the case file be returned for reassignment.

The development leaves the affected appeal subject to further proceedings before a newly assigned panel.

The N101 million defamation judgment at the centre of the appeals was reportedly delivered in May in favour of two DSS operatives. The outcome of the appeals will determine whether the judgment is upheld, varied or set aside.