•VeryDarkMan and Femi Falana SAN
The Lagos High Court in Ikeja has adjourned till February 19, the defamation suit filed by human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) and his son Folarin, popularly known as Falz, against Martins Otse also known as VeryDarkMan (VDM).
Justice Matthias Dawodu fixed the date today to hear a preliminary objection filed by VDM’s lawyer, Marvin Omorogbe, challenging the competence of the suit filed by the Falanas and the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, reports Channels TV.
Though the Falanas and VeryDarkMan were absent in court, they were, however, represented by their lawyers.
Counsel to VeryDarkMan, Omorogbe told the court at the resumption of proceedings that he had been served with a copy of the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiffs, the Falanas, against his preliminary objection, and he needed time to respond to same.
The lawyer to the Falanas, Omotade Omotunbosun, did not object to the application for adjournment.
Justice Dawodu subsequently adjourned the matter to February 19 for a hearing.
The Falanas had dragged VeryDarkMan before the court, demanding ₦500 million each as damages over a video he posted on his social media platforms alleging that they collected ₦10 million from Idris Okuneye, popularly known as Bobrisky, to pervert the cause of justice.
Justice Dawodu on October 14, 2024 ordered the self-acclaimed social media police to bring down the video which the senior lawyer and his son alleged contained very defamatory statements against them.
The judge had also restrained the defendant from further releasing, publishing, or circulating any defamatory videos and comments against the senior lawyer and his son on all his online social media handles and pages pending the hearing of the suit filed by the duo.
The judge also ordered that all the processes in the matter be served on VeryDarkMan through his lawyer, Deji Adeyanju.
In the application, VeryDarkMan argued through his lawyer that by the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1(4) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, the court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
Omorogbe also submitted that the defendant is domiciled and carries on business in Abuja, outside the jurisdiction of the court, and that the alleged defamatory publication was made in Abuja.
He also claimed that the claimants deliberately filed the suit before the court as a way of forum shopping in the hope that they would get a favourable judgment.
In their suits, the father and son averred that the defendants knew all his comments were inaccurate and not verified, yet, he proceeded to publish the same to injure their reputation recklessly.
They also stated that the alleged defamatory publication is still trending on the Defendant’s online handles and pages and that injury to their reputation continues as long as the publication remains online.
The Applicants alleged that in the “unverified audio recording of a one-sided narrative by the alleged Bobrisky, the said Bobrisky never said that the Claimants/Applicants collected ₦10 million from him, yet the defendant recklessly stated that Femi Falana collected ₦10 million from Bobrisky.
In the video, Verydarkman had stated “that he did not expect the Claimant, a lawyer to the late Fela Anikulapo Kuti, whom everyone respects, to “engage in something like this?” He also stated that the Claimant represented to Bobrisky that he could get a presidential pardon for Bobrisky in exchange for ₦10,000,000.00 (Ten million Naira only).
The Falanas are, therefore, seeking: a declaration that the publication of the Defendant made on September 24, 2024, on his Instagram handle, @verydarkblackman, wherein he specifically targeted the Claimant, is libellous, slanderous, derogatory, scandalous and defamatory.
“The sum of ₦500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira Only) for defamation of character contained in the Defendant’s video publication of September 24, 2024, on his Instagram handle @verydarkblackman.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or servants or otherwise from further publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words defamatory to the Claimant.
“An order directing the defendant to publish an apology to the Claimant on all his social media handles/pages for the defamatory words contained in the video complained of and in one national daily newspaper.”
