The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed an appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 May 2026 by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, which awarded ₦100 million in damages in favour of officials of the Department of State Services (DSS), a judgment SERAP considers to be “a travesty and a miscarriage of justice.”

The appeal, filed last Friday, 8 May 2026, by Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, on behalf of SERAP, is accompanied by an application seeking a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal, challenging what SERAP describes as “a legally flawed decision resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”

SERAP said, “the Notice of Appeal already filed will be amended upon receipt of the Certified True Copy of the judgment to incorporate key portions of the judgment that further highlight its flawed nature. Pending this, the appeal and the accompanying application for stay of execution already filed and served provide adequate legal protection for our organisation.”

Justice Yusuf Halilu had in his judgment last week ordered SERAP to pay ₦100 million in damages to the DSS officials for alleged defamation, issue public apologies, pay ₦1 million in litigation costs, and a 10 percent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until fully paid.

In its Notice of Appeal, SERAP is arguing that “the decision rests on fundamental legal and evidential errors that go to the root of jurisdiction and fairness in adjudication. The court’s decision is therefore perverse and a nullity.”

SERAP said, “the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement that was not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths, which ought to have been discountenanced. The court’s reliance on such evidence substantially affected the outcome of the case.”

SERAP is therefore asking the Court of Appeal for: “an order allowing the appeal; an order setting aside the entire judgment of the High Court of the FCT delivered on 5 May 2026; and an order dismissing the substantive suit (CV/4547/2024) in its entirety for lacking merit.”

SERAP is arguing that, “the appeal is not merely about the outcome of the case, but about whether a court can validly sustain proceedings founded on a defective originating process, or impose liability where the legal thresholds for defamation have not been met.”

According to SERAP, “the judgment is legally defective, procedurally flawed, and unsupported by evidence, raising substantial questions of jurisdiction, defamation law, and constitutional and international fair trial standards.”

SERAP is arguing that, “the court failed to apply the well-established objective test in defamation law, relying instead on subjective perceptions within the DSS rather than the understanding of ordinary members of the public.”

Source: PM News