Businessman, Nasiru Danu has won a N20 million suit against SaharaReporters for defamation of character following a Federal High Court, Abuja judgment on Thursday.
Delivering its judgment, the court ruled in favour of the businessman and chieftain of the All Progressives Congress, APC.
In the certified true copy of the judgment made available to newsmen, the presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Zubairu, awarded N20 million as damages against Sahara Reporters. This is for the publication of a malicious articles against the Danu, published on its website on 5 and 9 March 2021 respectively.
According to the judgment, Justice Zubairu also awarded an additional N15 million against Sahara Reporters as aggravated and exemplary damages.
The Judge also ordered SaharaReporters to retract the publication and publish an unreserved apology on its website to Danu.
The judgment read, “It is to be noted that the failure or refusal of the Defendant to justify this publication against the Claimant and also its further failure to retract or take down the publication has further proved the malicious intent of that publication.
“Consequently, the sole issue for determination is accordingly resolved in the affirmative. I am convinced beyond any doubt that the Claimant has satisfied the requirements of the law in proving his claim. against the Defendant.
“I have carefully looked at the totality of the Claimant’s pleadings, evidence and submissions of Counsel in support of the Claimant’s claim. And I am of the firm view that the Claimant has complied with all the elements required in proof of the tort of defamation. Not just because the Defendant decided to stand aloof throughout the span of this suit but because the Claimant has led credible evidence to establish that.
“There was a publication; ii) the publication was authored by the Defendant; iii) the publication refers to the Claimant; iv) the publication contains disparaging assertions against the Claimant; v) the publication is false and vi) the publication was communicated to a third party via the internet (which qualifies as communication to the whole world).”
Recall that SaharaReporters had on March 5, 2021, reported that Nasiru Danu and some top officials of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) defrauded the Nigerian Government of N51 billion meant for the improvement of the NCS.
Danu was described as an “arrowhead in what was known in some quarters as President Muhammadu Buhari’s oil mafia group.”
Also, in another article published on March 9, 2021, SaharaReporters claimed that Danu had fled the country. It claimed that he had fled to Dubai, the United Arab Emirates in a bid to “avoid being investigated.”
Following the publications, Danu, denied all the allegation leveled against him in the reports.
This was contained in a letter by his lawyer, Bode Olanipekun of Wole Olanipekun & Co. sent to SaharaReporters.
Danu, therefore, demanded the retraction of the publication from SaharaReporters’ official website and Twitter account.
However, his plea was not heeded. And on February 18, 2022, Danu filed a N6 billion defamation suit against Sahara Reporters. A claim for damages for the publication and circulation of libel contained in articles written and published by the news medium was made.
However, reacting to the judgment, the publisher of SahararReporters, Omoyele Sowore declined knowledge of the suit. He stated that his publication was not notified of the lawsuit. Therefore, it did not defend itself.
Premium Times reports the lawyer to Sahara Reporters, Inibehe Effiong, corroborated Sowore stand.
He said, “I am not aware of any such case. Neither am I aware of the judgement given in respect of such a case. SaharaReporters is also not aware of it. If someone is filing an action against an organization or a company or individual, the defendant ought to be give notice.”
Responding to the court’s statement that Sahara Reporters was served through substituted means, Effiong said that was not proper. He said, whatever method that was adopted did not bring the case to SaharaReporter’s notice.
“The law is that even if you are serving by substituted means, the mode of service must be one that is capable of bringing that suit to the notice of the defendant,” he said.
source: Premium Times
Follow us for more news on our WhatsApp News Channels @
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaC505jB4hdZ5Yx9g82U