Court Of Appeal To Ugwuonye: Social Media Is Not A Courtroom — ₦100m Libel Award For Aiyedogbon Affirmed, S. 84 Evidence Act Objection Dismissed

Delivering the leading judgment, Hon. Justice Okon Abang not only upheld the High Court’s judgment delivered by Justice K. N. Kekemeke of the FCT High Court but also issued a scathing rebuke of Ugwuonye’s conduct during the proceedings. The appellate court further sustained the perpetual injunction restraining Ugwuonye from publishing further defamatory material against Aiyedogbon or his family, and awarded an additional N500,000 in costs.

Ugwuonye had challenged the admissibility of several computer-generated exhibits (marked B, C1–C4, E, G1–G2, K1–K2, L), arguing that they were tendered in breach of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which requires a certificate of compliance for digital evidence. However, the Court of Appeal found the argument procedurally defective and legally untenable.

Justice Abang held that Ugwuonye failed to raise any objection to the documents during trial and did not seek leave of court to introduce the issue as a fresh ground on appeal. He stressed that appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate on issues not first raised and decided at the trial court, citing settled principles from Saraki v. Kotoye and FRN v. Nwosu.

“The law is settled,” Abang declared. “Where there is no decision on an issue, there can be no appeal except with leave. The appellant did not apply for or obtain such leave. His silence and absence from trial, while pursuing social media campaigns, do not entitle him to now seek redress for self-inflicted injuries.”

In what many legal analysts have described as a firm reaffirmation of procedural discipline, the Court excoriated Ugwuonye’s approach to the trial, noting that he was duly served court processes in 2017 but failed to appear or file a defence for over five years. His eventual motion to enter a defence, filed in October 2021, was rightly struck out for non-payment of the statutory default fee of N200 per day as required under Order 56 of the FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.

According to Justice Abang, “The appellant chose a strategy of media grandstanding over courtroom advocacy. His nonchalance at the trial court was deliberate, aimed at buying time for social media activism, not legal resolution. The judgment entered against him is therefore a repercussion of his own calculated indifference.”

The Court also held that even if the questioned exhibits were excluded, there remained overwhelming unchallenged evidence against Ugwuonye, including letters from Aiyedogbon’s community, church, and business associates, as well as the Respondent’s written testimony, all attesting to the reputational damage suffered.

Justice Abang added, “The Appellant, a legal practitioner called to the Nigerian Bar, should know better. He failed to challenge the evidence against him, failed to appear, failed to file his defence, and now wants to benefit from his own inaction. He alone is to blame.”

This case, marked CA/ABJ/CV/83/2024, is expected to serve as a reference point for future matters involving defamation, social media liability, and the procedural admissibility of digital evidence under Nigerian law. It also stands as a stern reminder that the courtroom—not the internet—is the proper arena for legal redress.