Mohammed, who is now the Minister for Information and Culture, claimed that he was maligned through a press statement dated September 20, 2015 credited to Metuh. On November 17, after entertaining arguments from the parties, Justice Ipaye had adjourned ruling till Monday. The ruling could, however, not be delivered as the judge did not sit on Monday. Apart from seeking N500m as compensation for alleged reputational damage, Mohammed is also seeking a court order compelling Metuh to retract the contentious press statement and to tender a published apology to him in a national daily to run for seven consecutive days. Mohammed’s lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, claimed that Metuh, in the said statement, painted Mohammed as a fraudster, an economic saboteur and a corrupt and dubious character who must not be entrusted with money. He alleged that Metuh made a categorical statement to the effect that Mohammed embezzled the funds meant for the fencing of an airport in one of the APC-controlled states in the South-West and also diverted funds meant for the purchase of ambulances in an APC-controlled state. He also claimed that Metuh went further to express shock that Mohammed could muster the courage to speak against corruption, when, according to him, Mohammed had mastered the art of corruption, having been “a personal aide to one of the most corrupt politicians to ever bestride the political space of the country.” Mohammed, who said he was a one-time coordinator of the Bola Ahmed Tinubu Campaign Organisation, claimed that the statement credited to Metuh was carefully calculated to inflict damage on his reputation and to lessen him in the estimation of the public. His lawyer, Shittu, said Mohammed was entitled to all his claims against Metuh. But Metuh, through his lawyer, Chief Emeka Etiaba (SAN), had filed a preliminary objection as the court to “either strike out Mohammed’s suit for being incompetent or to dismiss it for being unmeritorious.” Etiaba argued that Mohammed failed to comply with Order 3 Rule 9 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rule 2012 and Section 97 of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act Cap S6, LFN, 2004 and that that failure had rendered the suit incompetent and liable to be struck out. Among other alleged errors, Etiaba claimed that Mohammed’s application was not served on the defendant within five days and that the affidavit in support of the application was not duly signed. Besides, he said, “The application is not specific as to the libelous materials sought to be restrained.”]]>