The Lagos State High Court, sitting in Osborne, Ikoyi, has struck out the N1 billion defamation lawsuit filed by popular Nollywood actress, Iyabo Ojo, against her colleague, Lizzy Anjorin.
The court dismissed the suit on the grounds of procedural irregularities and fundamental flaws in the originating court processes.
Presiding over the case, Justice Olabisi Akinlade ruled that the action was incompetent, primarily because of defects in compliance with essential procedural rules.
She consequently ordered Iyabo Ojo’s lawyer, Dr. Olabimpe Ajegbomogun, to pay the sum of N500,000 to Anjorin’s legal counsel, Barrister Ademola Olabiyi, as costs.
The legal dispute, filed under suit number LD/ADR/5292/2023, stemmed from allegations of defamation by Iyabo Ojo, who sought N1 billion in damages from Anjorin.
However, Anjorin’s lawyer, Barrister Olabiyi, raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit. He argued that the originating processes failed to comply with the mandatory pre-action protocols stipulated in the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedure Rules.
A significant flaw cited by the defence was the absence of a valid signature on the Statement of Compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol (Form 01), which accompanied the Writ of Summons.
According to Olabiyi, the omission of a signature by Ojo’s counsel on this critical document rendered the entire suit defective and void from the outset.
He further pointed out that the Writ itself did not adhere strictly to the format prescribed by the court and lacked proper endorsement of the specific reliefs being sought by the claimant.
Additionally, the defence raised concerns regarding the authenticity of the court documents filed by Ojo. They argued that the documents on file were unsigned and that no Certified True Copy (CTC) was available to authenticate them.
A search conducted on April 2, 2024, revealed that the original Writ in the court’s file remained unsigned. The only version produced by Ojo’s counsel in their counter-affidavit was merely an uncertified photocopy, further casting doubt on its validity.
In response, Dr. Ajegbomogun, counsel for Iyabo Ojo, dismissed these objections as mere technicalities. She contended that the procedural errors cited by the defence did not undermine the substantive merit of the case.
The counter-affidavit maintained that the Writ had indeed been signed and that any procedural lapses could be rectified through an amendment before the substantive hearing commenced.
Nevertheless, Justice Akinlade rejected this argument, asserting that the failure to sign the originating Writ of Summons at the time of filing constituted a “fatal defect.”
The judge emphasized that the certified copy retrieved by Anjorin’s lawyer confirmed that the Writ was indeed unsigned when the suit was filed and subsequently assigned to the court.
As a result of these findings, the court dismissed the suit in its entirety, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements in legal proceedings.