TRENDING POST

FG orders logical prosecution of Benjamin Joseph, serial blackmailer of Zinox chairman - ITREALMS

ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news! The Federal Government has ordered the continuation of prosecution to a logical conc...

Wednesday, September 14, 2022

Defamation against Pastor Olukoya: London court refuses Maureen Badejo's appeal - ITREALMS

ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!


The London-based Vlogger, Ms Maureen Badejo has lost an appeal in a London over the defamatory case against her in respect to several defamatory statements she had made against Dr. Daniel Olukoya and his wife, Dr. (Mrs) Folashade Olukoya, reports 
ITREALMS.
London-based Vlogger, Ms Maureen Badejo
Dr. Olukoya, ITREALMS recalled, is the founder and General Overseer of Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries (worldwide).
In the latest ruling, the High Court Appeal Centre, Royal Courts of Justice, London, on 13th September, 2022, ordered that:
"Permission to appeal is refused. The application is totally without merit. Pursuant to CPR 52.4(3), the defendant may not request this decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing."


Recalled that Maureen had approached the court to upturn two judgements against her, including the Orders of Master Thornett dated 13 April 2021 and 3 February 2022. Case Number: QB-2020-003625, whereas her appeal reference is QA-2020-000054.


Full text of the ruling...


In the High Court of Justice
High Court Appeal Centre Royal Courts of Justice
Orders of Master Thornett dated 13 April 2021 and 3 February 2022
Case Number: QB-2020-003625
Appeal Ref: QA-2020-000054

Between Daniel Kolawole Olukoya
and Mrs Folashade Okukoya
(Claimant and respondent)

and Maureen Badejo
(Defendant and appelant)
QB-2020&003625)


ORDER
Before the Honourable Mr Justice Lavender sitting at the Royal Courts if Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL on the 13th day of Sept 2022

Upon considering the Defendant's application for permission to appeal and the Defendant's statement dated 6 May 2022 and the statement of Samuel O'Toole dated 20 April l 2022.

Without a Hearing

It is ordered that:

1. Permission to appeal is refused
2. The application is totally without merit
3. Pursuant to CPR 52.4(3), the defendant may not request this decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing.

Reasons:
1. If and insofar as the defendant was seeking permission to appeal against Master Thornett's order of 13 April 2021 ("the first order"), her appeal is out of time, no reason for extending time has been identified and no arguable grounds have been identified. The defendant now acknowledges that she cannot use this application to appeal against the first Order.

2. Insofar as the Defendant seeks permission to appeal against Master Thornett's order of 3 February 2022 ("the second order"), her proposed grounds if appeal are both hopeless and pointless.

a. The second order correctly recorded that Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries lnternational was no longer a Claimant, it having discontinued its action against the Defendant in all respects. Whether itwas named as a Claimant in the order or not made no practical difference to the Defendant.

b. With one exception, the second order made no change of substance to the first order. Even if the proposed appeal were allowed to proceed and resulted in the second order being set aside, the Defendant would remain subject to the same prohibition.

c. The second order merely restated the first order in a different form, in response to a suggestion by Tipples J that a mistake had been made as to the form of the first order. Master Thornett had power to correct that accidental slip pursuant to CPR 40.12.

d. The exception was that one item (Video 1(i)) was removed from the list of "imputations" which the Defendant was prohibited from repeating. The inclusion of that item in the first order had been an accidental slip, because it did not concern the conduct of the Second and Third Claimants. Again, Master Thornett had power to correct that slip. Moreover, the removal of that item from the list in the second order was a benefit to the Defendant. No point would be served by the Defendant appealing against a change which was in favour.

No comments: