A lawyer, Olayinka Ola Daniels, has been dragged before a Lagos High Court, by a senior lawyer, Babatunde Ogunba (SAN) for making slanderous statement against him, his character and person, over his appointment by the court as a Receiver/Manager over some companies.
Ogunba SAN in the suit numbered LD/5356CMW/2025, alleged that the Ola-Davis made the derogatory and slanderous statements against him on August 14, 2025, during a live interview session on Arise television.
Specifically, Ogunba SAN stated that during the live interview program, Ola Daniels has said that ‘Egbin Power Receivership controversy: Ogunba SAN trying to be smart with press release’, which was also disseminated on all the television’s social media handles, which include; X formerly Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and others.
The senior lawyer also stated that all efforts to make the lawyer withdraw the said defamatory statement from the public proved abortive, as he stated that the defendant only responded to his letter saying that: “I stand by my point”.
Sequel to the above, the senior lawyer claimed that defendant’s actions had made him to suffer continuous and irreparable harm to his personality, professional and personal reputations, as well as considerable distress and embarrassment.
He also stated that it has also caused him lost of goodwill in the face of the general public and to all those who held him in high esteem.
The senior lawyer therefore pray the court against the defendant for the followings: “a declaration that the defendant’s broadcasted interview on Arise Tv network on 14th August 2025, titled “Egbin Power Receivership controversy: Ogunba SAN trying to be smart with press release-Ola Daniel, and subsequent disseminated of the live broadcast on; You Tube (https.//www, youtube.com/watch?y19TKwI55WM); X, (previously known as Twitter) (https//x.com/arisetv/status/195594281948806179?s=48) and Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/reei/DNVRiI1LJIHSS/?igsh=MTd0anVpc2NrZjN3aw= in reference to the Claimant is false, malicious, libelous and defamatory and ha. thrown the Claimant into odium, public ridicule, discredited and damaged the Claimant’s reputation in the eyes of distinguished legal practitioners, judges and the general public.
“An order mandating the defendant to publish a A Written Public Apology to the Claimant, to be published in at least four (4) national newspapers with coverage across all geopolitical zones in Nigeria, containing a clear and unequivocal undertaking not to issue any further false statements concerning the Claimant.
“A Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant directing the Defendant to Cease And Desist forthwith from making any further unfounded, untrue and malicious statements against the Claimant in any form or medium, including on social media platforms.
“General damages for defamation In the sum of N1, 000, 000, 000. 00 (One Billion Naira) for injury suffered by the Claimant against the Defendant as a result of the Defendant’s malicious publication.
“Punitive or exemplary damages in the sum of N500, 000, 000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) for recklessness, carelessness and gross negligent conduct exhibited by the Defendants, in publishing false information. And Cost of this action.”
The suit is accompanied with a 36 paragraph-affidavit and other documentary exhibits.
However, when the matter came up for hearing on November 24, 2025, before the court presided over by Justice Rosul Olokolu, the senior lawyer was represented by the dou of U. D. Ogbonna and B.R. Kreni, while the lawyer was not represented by any counsel.
During the Monday’s proceedings, the Claimant’s lawyer, while apologized for the absence of the lead counsel on behalf of the Applicant, informed the Court that the matter was coming up for the first time and that they were unable to effect service on the defendant, hence an Ex-parte application has filed to to that effect.
Upon an inquest by the Court, to know the nature of the suit, Ogbonna stated that the matter pertains to defamation of character while drew the Court’s attention to the application dated November 20 2025, and sought the leave of the Court to move the application for leave to effect service of our originating processes via substituted means.
In view of the above, the Court granted leave to the claimant/applicant to effect service of the originating processes on the defendant by substituted means, with proof of service to be evidenced in an affidavit of service.
However, the Court refused the order sought in prayer two to deem the processes as duly served.
The judge thereafter adjourned the matter to January 19, 2025, for report of service .
