The media gateway to the East.
For inquiries:
Phone: +234 81 8616 6160
Email: editor.championnews@gmail.com
London-based Vlogger, Ms Maureen Badejo is in the news again. But this time, for the bad reason as she has again lost an appeal against mounting Court rulings against her in respect to several defamatory statements she had made against Dr. Daniel Olukoya and his wife, Dr. (Mrs) Folashade Olukoya.
Dr. Olukoya 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.”
Maureen had approached the court to upturn two judgements against her.
They are:
Orders of Master Thornett dated 13 April 2021 and 3 February 2022. Case Number: QB-2020-003625
Appeal Ref: 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:
Reasons
allowed to proceed and resulted in the second order being set aside, the Defendant would remain subject to the same prohibition.
power to correct that accidental slip pursuant to CPR 40.12.
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.
For a better society
Next Post
Recover your password.
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Comments are closed.