Our attention has been drawn to a misleading and defamatory article published by CrimeWorld Nigeria on 4 October 2025, titled “Furore As Customs Officer Landlord Forcefully Ejects Tenant With 2-Month Old Baby In Defiance Of Court Order.”
The report is riddled with falsehoods, malicious and deliberate omissions, and sensational claims. These are designed to malign the reputation of Mr. Ritji Stephen Gobak Gomos, a senior officer of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) and a law-abiding citizen, and to gather sympathy from the public by mentioning the involvement of a baby.
It is essential to place the facts before the public and expose the malicious distortion behind this publication. On the alleged “Forceful Ejection in Defiance of Court Order”, the publication falsely claims that our client acted “in flagrant defiance of a valid court order.” This claim is patently false. The Magistrate Court of Lagos State (Apapa Magisterial District), in Suit No. MCA/1478/CIV/2025, entered judgment in favour of our client on 3 September 2025, ordering the tenant, Mr. David Afam Akaraiwe to vacate the four-bedroom duplex at Plot 3456, Ihie Street, Divine Estate, Amuwo Odofin on or before 10 September 2025. That judgment remains valid, binding, and has not been set aside by any court. As the Supreme Court held in Rossek v. ACB Ltd. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382, a judgment, however obtained, remains binding until it is set aside. Similarly, in Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh (1972) 12 SC 77, the apex court clarified that the mere filing of a motion for stay of execution does not suspend a valid judgment.
It is therefore mischievous and legally untenable to describe the enforcement of a lawful court order as “defiance.” On the contrary, it is the tenant’s refusal to vacate after service of valid notices and judgment that constitutes contempt of court. On the alleged “Use of Policemen and thugs”, the publication in question makes the serious allegation that Mr. Gomos “hired policemen from Zone 2 and thugs” to forcibly evict the tenant. We categorically deny this claim, asserting that it is entirely unfounded and false. Under the provisions of Sections 9 and 19 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (Cap S6, LFN 2004), law enforcement officers are authorized to provide necessary security and maintain public order during the lawful execution of writs of possession. It is important to clarify that Mr. Gomos has never employed or engaged any “thugs” or unlawful agents in this matter. The allegations presented in the publication are not only baseless but are also reckless and defamatory. They are made without any credible evidence, which raises serious concerns regarding the intent behind such claims.
Moreover, disseminating false information of this nature constitutes criminal defamation under Sections 373 and 375 of the Criminal Code Act, which carries penalties that include imprisonment. Our client is prepared to take all necessary legal actions to protect his reputation and seek redress for this unjust damage.
On the fabricated claim of tampering with court summons, the report incorrectly claims that our client, Mr. Gomos instructed his gateman to remove the court summons that was pasted on the gate. This assertion is entirely false. In reality, Mr. Gomos was properly served with the court documents through substituted service, as evidenced by the court record and the affidavit of service acknowledging receipt. There is no indication that he attempted to evade or obstruct the service. In fact, the Magistrate’s judgment clearly notes the defendant’s absence despite being duly served. Furthermore, the article’s reference to “CCTV footage” is misleading. Such footage has never been submitted or certified in any court proceedings. According to Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011, electronic evidence must be properly authenticated before it can be accepted as valid. The fabrication of this false narrative appears to have been orchestrated to justify the tenant’s refusal to comply with a lawful judgment, which is both unfair and unlawful.
On the alleged ‘Counter Order’ the report additionally asserts that “the Magistrate issued a counter order prohibiting possession.” This assertion is incorrect; no such order exists. The certified true copy of the judgment dated September 3, 2025, remains unaltered and authoritative. Even if a motion for stay or review was subsequently filed, it does not constitute an automatic stay unless explicitly granted by the court, as established in Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh.
Accordingly, our client was fully entitled under the law to enforce the judgment at the time in question, consistent with established legal principles. On the publication of personal phone number and cyber harassment, the publishers went as far as publishing our client’s personal mobile number (+234 806 579 4596) and complete official identity, in a manner clearly intended to expose him to ridicule and public harassment. This is a criminal violation of his constitutional and statutory right to privacy. Under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act 2015, it is an offence to use any computer system or network to send messages that are false, offensive, or intended to cause annoyance or injury to reputation.
Furthermore, Sections 37 and 39 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, prohibit the unauthorised disclosure or processing of personal data without consent. The publication, therefore, constitutes cyber stalking, cyberbullying, and unlawful disclosure of personal data, for which both civil and criminal sanctions apply.
On statements by Mr. Akaraiwe’s counsel, the publication features a quote from Barrister Yinka Sanni in which he describes Mr. Gomos as a “lawless” individual, and further threatens to initiate legal proceedings against him and the Nigeria Police. Such language is not only unprofessional but also defamatory per se. The Court of Appeal in the case of Onyema v. Sun Newspapers Limited (2012) LPELR-19699 (CA) has established that any statement implying criminal conduct or moral unfitness regarding a public officer is legally actionable. Mr. Sanni’s reckless assertions, which have been extensively circulated by CrimeWorld, represent a serious, unethical breach and a contemptuous attack on our client’s character as well as the integrity of the judiciary.
On the legal position regarding tenancy, the legal framework clearly establishes that once a tenancy has expired and the appropriate statutory notices have been properly served, the landlord holds the right to recover possession of the premises. This principle has been consistently affirmed through judicial precedents, including the cases of Oladimeji v. Oshode (1968) NMLR 368, Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 35, and Nwaboku v. Ottih (1961) ANLR 507. In the present case, Mr. Gomos duly initiated the recovery process by serving the necessary notices: a notice to quit dated 30 September 2024, and a notice of owner’s intention to recover possession dated 2 June 2025. The court examined these notices and subsequently granted an order for possession to the landlord.
It is worth noting that the notice to quit was given for 8 months instead of the statutory 6 months, providing ample time. Also, since the tenancy was due to end on May 31st, 2025, at no point did they reach out to the landlord to discuss or negotiate an extension of stay, and we put them to the strictest proof. It is important to note that any continued occupation of the premises by the tenant after the court’s order is deemed unlawful and constitutes an infringement of the landlord’s legal rights.
On ownership of the property, it is important to emphasize that Mr. Gomos has officially sold the property in question and thus no longer holds any proprietary or possessory interest in the premises. Prior claims or assumptions suggesting that he continues to harass or threaten the tenant are entirely unfounded and false. Since he has no remaining connection or rights associated with the property following the sale, any such insinuations are not only incorrect but also malicious and potentially damaging.
On the integrity of the judiciary, the publication by CrimeWorld not only defames a public officer but also scandalises the judiciary by suggesting that court orders are being ignored. This reckless reporting constitutes contempt ex facie curiae, contempt committed outside the face of the court, which attracts severe legal consequences. Responsible journalism requires verification from court records before sensationalising legal matters. We hereby demand that CrimeWorld Nigeria:
1. Publish an unreserved retraction and apology within seven (7) days of this response.
2. Removes the defamatory article from all its online and social platforms.
3. Cease and desists from any further false reporting relating to this matter.
Failure to comply will result in both civil and criminal proceedings for defamation, cyber harassment, and unlawful data disclosure.
