BY MICHAEL AKINOLA
The Court of Appeal in Lagos has affirmed the dismissal of a libel suit instituted by media entrepreneur Mosunmola Abudu against child rights advocate Oluyemisi Wada, upholding an earlier decision of the Lagos State High Court.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on July 2, 2026, a three-member panel comprising Justices Muslim Sule Hassan, Folasade Ayodeji Ojo and Polycarp Terna Kwahar dismissed Abudu’s appeal.
Abudu had sued Wada over an opinion article titled “Mute Voices” published in THISDAY newspaper in September 2009.
She alleged that the article falsely suggested that proceeds from a charity concert organised for street children were diverted from their intended purpose.
She sought N700 million as general damages, another N700 million as aggravated damages, a public retraction and apology in national newspapers and online, as well as an order restraining further publication of the statements.
Court’s Findings on Proof of Libel
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Hassan held that while Wada admitted authoring the publication, that admission did not automatically establish libel.
The court said a claimant must also prove, with credible evidence, that the publication was communicated to third parties in a manner that lowered the claimant’s reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
The justices rejected the argument that the trial judge should have relied solely on the ordinary meaning of the words to determine if they were defamatory.
The court held that independent evidence from persons who read the publication and whose perception of the claimant was affected remains a critical element of proof.
“A person’s reputation is not based on the good opinion he has of himself but the estimation in which others hold him,” the court observed, adding that publication in a widely circulated newspaper is insufficient without evidence of its effect on third parties.
The Court noted that although Abudu testified that friends and associates contacted her after the publication, none of those individuals testified during the trial.
The justices said the testimony of at least one independent witness would have been sufficient to establish the impact on reputation.
Fair Comment and Public Interest
The Court of Appeal also upheld Wada’s defences of justification and fair comment.
The justices held that the issue centred on funds raised from the public for charitable purposes, making it a matter of public interest. They stated that citizens, particularly donors, are entitled to ask questions about the use of publicly donated funds and to express opinions on transparency and accountability.
The court further observed that Abudu, as a public figure who solicited public donations, should reasonably expect public scrutiny regarding the administration of those funds.
“It would not cost the appellant anything to provide explanation of her dealing with the funds generated from the public,” the court stated, describing the publication as one that challenged greater transparency.
On the allegation of malice, the court held that Wada’s decision to report concerns to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, could not, without more, be interpreted as personal hostility.
The court viewed it as consistent with her role as a child rights advocate and a contributor to the fundraising initiative.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Ojo, in a concurring judgment, stressed the distinction between authorship and publication in defamation law, noting that liability requires proof that the material was communicated to a third party.
She said the appellant did not produce credible evidence to satisfy that requirement.
Justice Kwahar also agreed with the lead judgment and dismissed procedural objections raised in the appeal.
Implications
Legal analysts say the judgment reinforces principles governing defamation actions in Nigeria and provides guidance on disputes involving public accountability.
The decision underscores that courts require strict proof of reputational injury and will not presume damage simply because allegedly offensive statements were published.
The ruling also affirms judicial protection for fair comment on matters of public interest, particularly where charitable organisations and public fundraising are involved.
Having resolved all three issues against the appellant, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, affirmed the Lagos State High Court judgment delivered on May 3, 2019, and made no order as to costs.
