Kwara Water Commissioner Appeals Dismissal Of Defamation Suit Against NupekoTV Publisher | Sahara Reporters

The commissioner raised six grounds of appeal, alleging errors in the trial court’s evaluation of evidence, interpretation of defamation law and application of the Evidence Act.

Kwara State Commissioner for Water Resources, Usman Yunusa Lade, has appealed against a judgment dismissing his defamation suit against Tauheed Baruwa Muhammed, publisher of NupekoTV, over a publication concerning the alleged failure of the Lafiagi Waterworks to function properly.

In a Notice of Appeal filed at the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Judicial Division, Lade challenged the entire judgment delivered on April 16, 2026, by Justice M. O. Folorunsho of the Kwara State High Court in Suit No. KWS/389/2024.

The commissioner raised six grounds of appeal, alleging errors in the trial court’s evaluation of evidence, interpretation of defamation law and application of the Evidence Act.

According to the appeal, the trial court found that the publication was defamatory but dismissed Lade’s claim because he failed to provide sufficient concrete evidence to establish that the publication was false.

Lade argued that the judge placed undue emphasis on the absence of documentary or visual evidence while failing to properly evaluate oral testimony presented in support of his case.

In his first two grounds of appeal, Lade challenged the trial judge’s reliance on Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, concerning the alleged withholding of evidence.

He argued that the respondent had neither demanded the production of a document mentioned in his statement of claim nor challenged its non-production during the proceedings.

The commissioner also alleged that the judge raised the issue of withheld evidence on his own initiative without allowing the parties to address the court before it relied on the issue in reaching its decision.

He contended that this violated his constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and contributed to the dismissal of his claim.

Lade further challenged the trial court’s reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Abalaka v. Akinsete (2023) LPELR-60349, arguing that the judgment did not establish documentary or visual evidence as the exclusive means of proving falsity in a defamation case.

A major part of the appeal concerns the trial court’s assessment of testimony about the operational status of waterworks in Lafiagi, Gbugbu and Zambufu communities in Kwara State.

Lade argued that the judge failed to properly consider the testimony of his witness, identified as PW1, before concluding that he had not produced concrete evidence showing that residents had access to potable water.

The trial judge was quoted in the appeal as stating that the claimant was expected to present documentary or visual evidence showing the supply of potable water in the affected communities and the availability of other basic amenities.

However, Lade maintained that oral testimony was legally admissible and deserved proper consideration, particularly because he claimed it had not been discredited during cross-examination or contradicted by evidence from the respondent.

The appeal cited PW1’s testimony under cross-examination concerning the waterworks.

The witness was quoted as saying: “I am aware that Lofiagi Water Works have not been in use even before I resume office and same as Zamgbufu. However, both are currently functioning.”

PW1 also reportedly testified that electricity was used to pump water at the Lafiagi Waterworks, with a Mikano generator also used for the operation.

The witness further stated: “No, to the best of my knowledge, the people of Lafiagi are not suffering from pipe borne water.”

Lade argued that the trial judge failed to adequately consider these statements and imposed an evidential requirement unsupported by the Evidence Act or binding judicial authority.

The fifth ground of appeal concerns the written statement on oath adopted by Muhammed, identified as DW1.

Lade challenged the trial judge’s decision that an alleged failure to properly swear to the statement before a Commissioner for Oaths was an administrative error that did not invalidate the evidence.

The trial judge was quoted as stating: “I therefore hold a firm view that Oath of DW1 taken on the 14th day of October, 2025 while proposing to give evidence in Court, has cured any irregularity associated with whether or not DW1 appeared before the Commissioner for Oaths to swear to this Written Deposition on Oath.”

The commissioner argued that a written statement on oath must comply with the Oaths Act and that its subsequent adoption in court could not cure a fundamental failure to meet legal requirements.

He also challenged the trial judge’s attribution of the alleged irregularity to the court registry, arguing that there was no evidence establishing that the defect resulted solely from an administrative error.

In his final ground of appeal, Lade argued that the trial court failed to assess the totality of the evidence before dismissing his claim.

He maintained that the judge did not attach sufficient probative value to PW1’s testimony or adequately consider an admission allegedly made by Muhammed during cross-examination.

According to the appeal, DW1 reportedly admitted: “Yes, I am not in the position to know the state of water resources in Kwara State.”

Lade argued that the statement was material to the dispute and should have been considered alongside the testimony of his own witness.

He maintained that a proper assessment of the oral and documentary evidence would have led to a different conclusion on whether he had established his case on the balance of probabilities.

The commissioner has urged the Court of Appeal to review the trial court’s findings and determine whether the alleged errors in law, evaluation of evidence and fair hearing materially affected the judgment.