The Lagos State High Court sitting at Annex Court No. 14, TBS, Lagos, presided over by Honourable Justice A. O. Opesanwo, has granted an order for substituted service in a high-profile defamation case involving the outspoken All Progressives Congress (APC) Edo State Chairman, Jarrett Tenebe, and renowned businessman and former gubernatorial candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Barrister Asue Ighodalo.
Truth Live News gathered that the lawsuit, brought under Suit No. LD/ADR/5731/2024, underscores a significant clash between two prominent figures in Edo State politics and business. Mr. Ighodalo, an accomplished barrister and corporate leader who has chaired boards of blue-chip companies such as Nigerian Breweries, alleges that Mr. Tenebe’s public statements have irreparably harmed his reputation.
Known for his brash and often controversial rhetoric, Jarrett Tenebe has gained a reputation for engaging in bold political confrontations. However, his latest remarks appear to have pushed him into a precarious legal position. The defamation suit arises from two incidents:
– A video published online on December 10, 2024, in which Tenebe allegedly made defamatory statements about Ighodalo.
– An interview granted to TMC TV/Radio on December 17, 2024, where Tenebe reportedly accused Ighodalo of theft.
Asue Ighodalo, in contrast, is widely respected as a legal luminary and corporate boardroom expert. Beyond his business acumen, he has played pivotal roles in managing some of Nigeria’s largest corporations and was a formidable PDP gubernatorial candidate in Edo State. The contrasting personalities of the two figures have made the case a focal point of public attention.
The application, dated January 3, 2025, sought leave to serve originating processes on Tenebe outside the jurisdiction of the court, specifically at the APC Edo State Secretariat in Benin City. The claimant also requested orders for substituted service through courier services, electronic means (WhatsApp), or by publication in national newspapers.
Senior counsel C. I. Umeche, Esq., representing the claimant, argued that Tenebe’s location and actions necessitated alternative measures to ensure proper service. The motion was supported by an affidavit deposed by Ayo Ilesanmi, which detailed the challenges of serving the defendant.
Justice Opesanwo ruled in favor of the claimant, granting leave for substituted service and setting specific modes for process delivery, including:
Publication of the Writ of Summons in either ThisDay or Punch newspapers (Monday edition).
Courier services such as FedEx or Redstar Express.
Electronic service via WhatsApp to Tenebe’s phone numbers: +234(0)803 402 7745 and +1(507)244-8411.
Posting the Writ on a conspicuous part of the APC Edo State Secretariat.
The court set a return date for March 5, 2025, and emphasized that failure by the defendant to enter an appearance within 42 days would result in a default judgment.
Claims and Demands
Barrister Ighodalo is seeking several remedies from the court:
– Declarations of Defamation: Official acknowledgment that the statements made by Tenebe constitute defamation.
– Compensatory Damages: NGN500 million to compensate for reputational harm.
– Retraction and Apology: Directives for the defendant to retract his statements on all platforms and issue a public apology within seven days of judgment.
The stakes in this case are significant. For Jarrett Tenebe, known for his fiery political style, this lawsuit represents a critical test of his resilience and judgment. By contrast, Asue Ighodalo, a man of measured words and deliberate actions, is leveraging his formidable legal and professional expertise to assert his right to reputation.
This clash symbolizes a broader tension between political bravado and professional integrity, highlighting the risks of unchecked public statements in an era where digital platforms amplify their reach and impact.
Legal analysts describe the court’s decision as a strong reminder of the judiciary’s role in addressing defamation in Nigeria’s increasingly polarized public sphere. Public sentiment is divided, with some viewing the lawsuit as a necessary step to uphold accountability, while others see it as a warning to political figures who engage in unsubstantiated attacks.
As the March 5, 2025, return date approaches, observers will closely monitor the developments, especially given the reputational stakes for both parties. The case could set a precedent for defamation suits involving political figures and business leaders in Nigeria.
The outcome of this case will have significant ramifications not just for the litigants but also for how public discourse is conducted in the Nigerian political space.
