Connect with us

Judiciary & Court

UK court dismisses blogger’s appeal in MFM, Olukoya’s defamation suit



Dr. Daniel Kolawole Olukoya, General Overseer of Mountain of Fire Ministries

A London High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench, 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 (MFM) Dr. Daniel Kolawole Olukoya and his wife, Folashade, for defaming their character.

The court presided over by Mrs. Justice Tipples, also dismissed an appeal filed by Badejo, challenging an order mandating her to publish the court judgment on 10 social media used in defaming the Olukoyas.

The church, MFM, it’s founder Dr. Olukoya and his wife had dragged the blogger before the court sometimes 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 were true.

However, in April 2021, the court had 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.

MFM has dismissed reports that Pastor David Onyekachukwu who impregnated a teenager in Abuja is not a pastor

MFM has dismissed reports that Pastor David Onyekachukwu who impregnated a teenager in Abuja is not a pastor

Consequently, both Olukoya and his wife, Folashade, 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 against the Blogger in favour of the Olukoyas.

Dissatisfied with the court order against her, the blogger appealed the judgment.

The presiding judge, Mrs. Justice Tipples, after perusing all the processes filed by the parties in a judgment delivered on November 1, held that: “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 the You Tube channel of Gio TV.

“Having said that, the defendant is not entitled re-argue matters decided by the court on 22 October 2021, namely that the summary of the judgment be published on the social media accounts of Gio Tv as the claimants correctly point out her 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 on those accounts, and also on Gio TV’s website and the other three social media accounts that she agreed to publish on in her version of the draft order.


“It’s for these reasons I have made the directions under Section 12 of the 2013 Act in the form set out in this Order”.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2016 - 2022 ChronicleNG