By Azeez Ibrahim, Lagos
A Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has dismissed the preliminary objections of a social media influencer, Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM) challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the ₦1 billion defamation suit filed against him by human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and his son, music artiste Folarin Falana, also known as Falz.
The court also ordered VDM to pay the sum of ₦200, 000 as fine to the Falanas.
In dismissing the defendant’s application, Justice Fimisola Azeez held that it lacked merit and consequently awarded a total cost of ₦200,000 against VDM — ₦100,000 each in favour of Femi and Folarin Falana, even as the lordship directed the defendant to immediately file his defence in both suits.
The Falanas are seeking redress over a video published by VDM on his Instagram page (@verydarkblackman). The video deemed defamatory, was shared on the social media influncer’s page on September 24, 2024.
The Falanas claimed the video was injurious to their reputation, and they are each claiming ₦500 million in damages, bringing the total claim to ₦1 billion.
At the mention of the suit, Femi Falana was represented by his lawyers, Ernest Olawanle and Femi Akinyemi, while his son, Folarin, personally attended the court session.
VDM was absent but was represented by his counsel, Marvin Omorogbe.
In their suits, the claimants alleged that VDM made libellous, scandalous, and defamatory remarks targeting them in his video. They are asking the court to declare the publication defamatory and to issue a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, or any associates from making or distributing similar statements in the future.
They further requested an order compelling VDM to publish a public apology on all his social media platforms and in a national newspaper.
VDM, in response, had filed a preliminary objection seeking to dismiss the suits for lack of jurisdiction. He argued that the Lagos High Court did not have the authority to entertain the matter, claiming the alleged offences were committed outside its jurisdiction.
But the claimants filed a counter-affidavit along with a written address, praying the court to dismiss the objection.
Justice Azeez ruled in their favour, dismissed VDM’s application, and ordered him to respond to the substantive defamation claims.
The judge then adjourned the case to July 8 for mention and to allow the defendant to file his statement of defence.
