The Abuja Division of Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal brought before it by a lawyer, Emeka Ugwuonye, against David Aiyedogbon in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/83/2024 over damages arising from alleged defamation.
The court, in a judgment delivered on 25 April 2025, affirmed the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, delivered by Justice Kekemeke, J., wherein the sum of N100 million was awarded as aggravated damages for the libellous publications made concerning David Aiyedogbon by Emeka Ugwuonye, a legal practitioner.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower court, the legal practitioner appealed to the Court of Appeal to, among other issues, determine “whether the trial court is not in error when it relied on exhibits B, C1, C2, C3, C4, E, G1, G2, and L to give judgment in favour of the Respondent when the documents which are computer-generated evidence are inadmissible for not complying with mandatory provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011.”
In shedding light on the implications of Section 84 of the Evidence Act governing the admissibility of computer-generated evidence, the court reasoned that where the admissibility of computer-generated evidence was not raised at the lower court, leading to a default judgment, the aggrieved party is duty-bound to make an application before the lower court seeking to set aside the default judgment on the ground of the inadmissibility of the computer-generated evidence or seek leave to raise it as a fresh issue on appeal. Otherwise, such a judgment founded on computer-generated evidence that failed to comply with Section 84 of the Evidence Act would stand, even on appeal.
Justice Okon Abang, who delivered the leading judgment of the appellate court in the ruling, whose Certified True Copy (CTC) was sighted by newsmen in Abuja on Sunday, amplified the scope of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, stating, “This Court has no original jurisdiction to entertain an issue that was not raised at the trial Court except with leave.
“If a trial Court did not decide an issue, there cannot be an appeal to this Court except with leave. In this case, the trial Court, in the judgment appealed against dated 28/9/2023, did not decide any issue concerning the inadmissibility of exhibits B, Cl, C2, C3, C4, E, Gl, G2, Kl, and L, being computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011, because it was not raised by the Appellant.
“The law is settled and requires no restatement that where there is no decision on an issue, there cannot be an appeal against a non-existent decision except with the leave of Court.
“The Appellant did not apply for and obtain leave before appealing against a non-existent decision… I agree with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the trial court did all that was humanly possible to hear the case of the Appellant, but he bluffed the Court because his mind was fixed on social media activities.
“What an unethical conduct. He was preoccupied with thoughts of further defaming the Respondent. It is my view, My Lords, that the Appellant, who had the temerity to bluff the trial Court without justification, cannot be heard on appeal to seek redress on the subject matter of the bluff.”
The Court of Appeal faulted the Appellant for his nonchalant attitude towards the proceedings at the lower court, where he failed to appear for upwards of five years and refused to file his defence.
Justice Abang came down heavily on the lawyer for failing to “fully participate in the proceedings at the trial and for upwards of five years failed to file his defence… was nonchalant, playing the game of hide and seek,” noting that he was not entitled to “rush to the Court of Appeal in indecent haste to raise, without leave, that the trial Court admitted inadmissible evidence to warrant the judgment being set aside.
“The Appellant did not challenge these pieces of evidence against him even when he had the opportunity to do so. For upwards of five years, the Appellant failed to file his defence. Appellant, a legal practitioner called to the Nigerian Bar, who is expected to know the consequence of failing to challenge any piece of evidence made against a party in a litigation process, thereby fumbled and gambled with his rights… the failure of the Appellant to file his defence for upwards of five years was an independent decision, an exercise of legal right, a choice made by him.
“In fact, it was a legal strategy adopted by him to enhance his case and give him adequate time to attend to his social media activities. Judgment entered against him was his choice, what he bargained for. In fact, a repercussion for his excesses that he must live with. He has himself and only himself to blame.”
The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
