A court sitting in London has denied Ms Maureen Badejo the right to appeal a court judgement in favour of General Superintendent of the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Church, Dr. Daniel Olukoya, and his wife, Mrs Folashade Olukoya, saying her application is totally without merit.
The details are as follows:
ln the High Court of Justice
High Court Appeal Centre Royal Courts of Justice
Orders of Master Thornett dated 13 April 2021 and 3 February 2022
Case number: QB-2020-003625
Appeal ref: QA-2022-000054
BETWEEN
(2) Dr DANIEL KOLAWOLE OLUKOYA
(3) Mrs FOLASHADE OLUKOYA
Claimant and Respondent
and
Ms MAUREEN BADEJO
Defendant and appellant
ORDER
Before the Honourable Mr Justice Lavender sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL on the 13th day of September 2022.
UPON considering the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal and the Defendant’s statement dated 6 May 2022 and the statement of Samuel O’Toole dated 20 April 2022.
WITHOUT A HEARING
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Permission to appeal is refused.
2. The application is totally without merit.
3. Pursuant to CPR 52.4 (3), the defendant may not request this decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing.
Reasons
1. lf and insofar as the Defendant was seeking permission to appeal against Master Thornett’s order of 13 April 2021 (“the first order’), her appeal is out of time, no reason for extending time has been identified and no arguable grounds of appeal have been identified. The Defendant now acknowlegdes that she cannot use this application to appeal against the first order.
2. lnsofar as the Defendant seeks permission to appeal against Master Thornett’s order of 3 February 2022 (“the second order), her proposed grounds of appeal are both hopeless and pointless:
a. The second order correctly recorded that Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries lnternational was no longer a Claimant, it having discontinued its action against the Defendant in all respects. Whether it was named as a Claimant in the order or not made no practical difference to the Defendant.
b. With one exception, the second order made no change of substance to the first order. Even if the proposed appeal were allowed to proceed and resulted in the second order being set aside, the Defendant would remain subject to the same prohibition.
c. The second order merely restated the first order in a different form, in response to a suggestion by Tipples J that a mistake had been made as to the form of the first order. Master Thornett had power to correct that accidental slip pursuant to CPR 40.12.
d. The exception was that one item (Video 1(i)) was removed from the list of “imputations” which the Defendant was prohibited from repeating. The inclusion of that item in the first order had been an accidental slip, because it did not concern the conduct of the Second and Third Claimants. Again, Master Thornett had power to correct that slip. Moreover, the removal of that item from the list in the second order was a benefit to the Defendant. No point would serve by the Defendant appealing against a change which was in her favour.
See court’s original papers:
