Appeal Court affirms dismissal of Mo Abudu’s N1.4bn libel suit

The Court of Appeal in Lagos has upheld the dismissal of a libel suit filed by media entrepreneur, Mosunmola Abudu, against child rights advocate, Oluyemisi Wada, affirming that the claimant failed to prove the publication damaged her reputation.

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 and affirmed the May 3, 2019 judgment of the Lagos State High Court.

Abudu had sued Wada over a September 2009 opinion article titled Mute Voices, published in THISDAY newspaper, claiming it falsely suggested that funds raised during a charity concert for street children were diverted from their intended purpose.

She sought N700 million in general damages, N700 million in aggravated damages, a public apology and retraction, and an order restraining further publication of the statements.

However, the appellate court ruled that although Wada admitted writing the article, authorship alone was insufficient to establish libel.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Hassan held that a claimant in a defamation case must prove not only that the publication was made but also that it was communicated to third parties in a manner that lowered the claimant’s reputation.

The court observed that while Abudu claimed friends and associates contacted her after reading the article, none of them testified during the trial to show that their perception of her had been negatively affected.

According to the court, at least one independent witness was required to establish that the publication caused reputational harm.

The panel also upheld Wada’s defences of justification and fair comment, ruling that the article addressed the management of funds donated by members of the public for charitable purposes, making it a matter of legitimate public interest.

The justices held that members of the public were entitled to seek accountability over donated funds and express opinions on how such resources were managed.

The court further noted that, as a public figure who solicited donations, Abudu could reasonably be subject to public scrutiny regarding the administration of the funds.

It also rejected allegations that Wada acted with malice, holding that her decision to report her concerns to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was consistent with her role as a child rights advocate and did not, on its own, establish ill will.

In a concurring judgment, Justice Ojo stressed that liability for defamation cannot arise merely because a person authored a document, adding that publication and its impact on a claimant’s reputation must be proved with credible evidence.

Justice Kwahar also agreed with the lead judgment, dismissing procedural objections raised in the appeal and concluding that the case lacked merit.

The Court of Appeal consequently dismissed the appeal in its entirety, affirmed the judgment of the Lagos State High Court and made no order as to costs.