Why Court Refused Eze Chikamnayo’s Request to Dismiss Gov. Otti’s ₦100bn Defamation Suit
By All Facts Newspaper
The legal battle between Abia State Governor, Dr. Alex Chioma Otti, and former Commissioner for Information, Chief Eze Chikamnayo, has taken a dramatic turn after the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Jabi dismissed an application seeking to terminate the Governor’s ₦100 billion defamation suit.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, Justice J. E. Obanor rejected Chikamnayo’s preliminary objection, holding that Governor Otti had substantially complied with the provisions of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Civil Procedure Rules, 2025, and that the alleged defects raised by the defendant were merely procedural irregularities incapable of depriving the court of jurisdiction.
The decision clears the way for the substantive hearing of the high-profile defamation case, which stems from allegations that Chikamnayo published defamatory statements against Governor Otti on a Facebook page identified as “Iyierioba Chikamnayo.”
The former commissioner had urged the court to strike out the suit, arguing that the Pre-Action Counselling Certificate filed alongside the originating processes was incompetent because it was signed by Governor Otti’s counsel and a witness instead of the Governor personally.
According to the defence, such non-compliance rendered both the certificate and the writ of summons invalid, thereby denying the court jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Chikamnayo’s legal team relied on previous judicial authorities, including Nkemdilim v. Madukolu and Oloja & Ors v. Governor of Benue State, insisting that compliance with the rule was mandatory before the commencement of any action.
The defence further argued that the individual who signed on behalf of Governor Otti was not a party to the suit and therefore lacked the legal authority to execute the certificate.
Governor Otti, through his legal representatives, strongly opposed the application, arguing that nothing in the court rules rendered a suit incompetent merely because of an alleged defect in the pre-action counselling certificate.
The Governor’s lawyers maintained that the certificate was validly executed by an authorised representative acting on behalf of the claimant and that any defect complained of amounted only to a procedural irregularity which could not invalidate the proceedings.
They urged the court to prioritise substantial justice rather than technical objections capable of frustrating the determination of cases on their merits.
In his ruling, Justice Obanor rejected the defendant’s arguments and held that the challenged portions of Governor Otti’s counter-affidavit merely contained factual explanations rather than prohibited legal arguments under the Evidence Act.
The judge also examined Order II Rule 8 of the FCT High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2025, alongside the prescribed Form 6, observing that although the rule mentions signatures by both counsel and litigant, the official form itself contains no provision requiring the litigant’s signature.
According to the court, the primary purpose of the certificate is to ensure that counsel has advised the client on the strengths and weaknesses of the case before litigation begins and to make counsel personally liable where an action proves frivolous.
Justice Obanor ruled that this objective had already been achieved.
He further stated that if no pre-action counselling certificate had accompanied the suit, the situation would have been entirely different.
However, since the certificate was filed and duly signed by Governor Otti’s counsel, the requirement had been substantially fulfilled.
The court further held that even if Governor Otti ought to have personally signed the certificate, such omission would amount only to an irregularity capable of being corrected under the Rules.
Justice Obanor relied on Order 7 Rule 1 and Order 15 Rule 15 of the High Court Rules, which discourage technical objections based solely on defects in form.
Reaffirming long-standing judicial principles, the judge declared that procedural rules exist to facilitate justice and not to obstruct it.
He stressed that dismissing an entire suit merely because of the absence of the claimant’s personal signature—when the prescribed form itself does not require such signature—would amount to elevating technicality above justice.
Governor Otti instituted the suit after alleging that Chikamnayo published a series of defamatory statements against him on Facebook, causing damage to his reputation and emotional distress.
The Governor is asking the court to award ₦100 billion as damages for the alleged defamation.
He is also seeking an order compelling Chikamnayo to publish an unreserved apology both on the Facebook page and in selected national newspapers, alongside other reliefs.
The case has already witnessed significant developments.
On December 18, 2025, the court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Chikamnayo from making or publishing further alleged defamatory statements pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Subsequently, in January 2026, the court reportedly issued a Form 87 contempt notice after Governor Otti alleged that the former commissioner continued publishing the disputed materials despite the restraining order.
Chikamnayo has, however, denied owning or operating the Facebook page in question and equally denied authoring the alleged defamatory publications.
With Friday’s ruling, the path is now clear for the court to proceed with hearing the substantive issues surrounding the ₦100 billion defamation claim.
VISIT COMMENT SECTION FOR MORE DETAILS 👇
