A London High Court of Justice, sitting at Strand, Queen’s Bench Division, United Kingdom, has dismissed an appeal filed by a blogger, Ms. Maureen Badejo, against the judgment of the court, which ordered her to pay the sum of £65,000 and £35, 000 to the founder of Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries, MFMM, Dr. Daniel Olukoya, and his wife, Folashade, for defaming their characters.
The court, presided over by Mrs. Justice Amanda Tipples, also dismissed an appeal filed by the blogger, Maureen Badejo, challenging an order mandating her to publish the court judgment in 10 social media used in defaming the Olukoyas.
The church, MFMM, its founder Dr. Olukoya, and his wife had dragged the blogger before the court sometime in October 2020, in a suit marked QB-2020-003625, in defamation in relation to allegations of dishonesty and sexual misconduct.
But Ms. Badejo, in her defence before the court, claimed that what she published about the Olukoyas was true.
However, in April 2021, the court struck out the blogger’s defence for disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim against her, and as an abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, both Dr. Olukoya and his wife obtained summary judgment against Ms Badejo; an injunction was granted preventing Ms Badejo from publishing any of the allegations she had made against the couple.
On October 22, 2021, the court awarded the monetary damages in the sums of £65,000 and £35,000 BPS, against the blogger in favour of the Olukoyas.
And also ordered the blogger to publish the Court Judgment in all social media used in defaming the Olukoyas.
But dissatisfied with the court order against her, the blogger appealed the judgment.
Justice Mrs Tipples, after perusing all the processes filed by the parties in a judgment delivered on November 1, held: “I do not consider it is reasonable under Section 12(4) of the 2013 Act, to order the defendant to publish the summary of the judgment on all 10 social media sites identified by the claimants and, in particular on the Twitter and Instagram account identified and on her YouTube channel and Global Interdenominational Outreach UK GIO TV
“Having said that, the defendant is not entitled to re-argue matters decided by the court on October 22, 2021, namely that the summary of the judgment be published on the social media accounts of Gio Tv as the claimants correctly point out ber connection with Gio Tv is set out in the time of the particulars of claim (see paragraph 12) and they obtained summary.
“Judgment on their claim in front of Master Thomett in April 2021. The publication of the defendant’s videos on, for example, Gio TV’s Facebook attracted a substantial (133 878).
“As did the publication on the Facebook account of Gio TV Foundation (12,862).” Further, at the hearing before me on 22 October 2021, the defendant accepted these accounts were under her control, and she described them as “my channels”.
“It is, therefore, appropriate for the defendant to publish a summary of the judgment to the audience following those accounts, and also on Gio TV’s website.”