Entertainment

Court Throws Out Iyabo Ojo’s ₦1 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against Lizzy Anjorin

Published by Tope Fakinlede on July 14th, 2025.

Court Throws Out Iyabo Ojo’s ₦1 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against Lizzy Anjorin

By Innocent Anaba

LAGOS — The Lagos State High Court in Osborne, Ikoyi, has dismissed a ₦1 billion defamation case filed by Nollywood actress Iyabo Ojo against her fellow actress, Lizzy Anjorin.

Justice Olabisi Akinlade, who delivered the ruling, declared the case procedurally defective, citing critical errors in the way the lawsuit was initiated. As a result, the court not only struck out the case but also ordered Ojo’s legal representative, Dr. Olabimpe Ajegbomogun, to pay ₦500,000 in costs to Anjorin’s lawyer, Barrister Ademola Olabiyi.

The lawsuit, with reference number LD/ADR/5292/2023, involved allegations of defamation for which Ojo was demanding ₦1 billion in damages. However, Anjorin’s legal team raised a preliminary objection, pointing out that Ojo failed to comply with essential pre-filing requirements as set out in the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedure Rules.

A key issue raised was that the Statement of Compliance with Pre-Action Protocol—Form 01—was not signed by Ojo’s counsel. Olabiyi argued this oversight invalidated the case entirely. He also noted that the Writ of Summons deviated from the prescribed legal format and failed to clearly endorse the reliefs being sought.

Further scrutiny revealed that several documents submitted by the claimant were either unsigned or uncertified. A court file inspection conducted on April 2, 2024, showed that the original Writ was not signed, and the version attached to the claimant’s counter-affidavit was merely a photocopy without proper certification.

In her defense, Ojo’s lawyer maintained that these were technical issues that didn’t compromise the essence of the lawsuit. She argued that any procedural lapses could be corrected before the trial began.

Nonetheless, Justice Akinlade held firm, stating that an unsigned Writ of Summons was a fundamental flaw that rendered the case invalid from the outset. The judge emphasized that even the certified copy submitted later confirmed that the original document had not been signed at the time it was filed.