A Lagos High Court on Thursday (today) postponed the hearing of a defamation lawsuit against social media influencer, Vincent Otse, also known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), until January 23, 2025....CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING.>>
Court Fixes New Date To Pass Judgement On Femi Falanas’ Suit Against VeryDarkMan.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The lawsuit against VDM was filed by renowned human rights activist, Femi Falana, SAN and his son, Folarin, who is widely recognized as Falz.
VDM had appeared in court on Thursday morning in a traditional red outfit, accompanied by supporters vocally encouraging him, while the Falanas were not present.
It was noted that the proceedings could not advance due to the absence of several applications filed by the involved parties from the court’s records. Consequently, the court decided to adjourn the hearing to January 23, 2025.
On October 14, Justice Matthias Dawodu ruled on an ex parte application for an interim and preemptive remedy submitted by the Falanas, affirming their legal right to protection against slander.
The court also mandated VDM to remove the allegedly defamatory video he posted on September 24, 2025, targeting the senior advocate and his son.
Additionally, Justice Dawodu prohibited the self-proclaimed social media watchdog from further releasing, publishing, or disseminating any defamatory videos or remarks regarding the senior lawyer and his son across all his social media platforms until the lawsuit is heard.
The judge further instructed that all relevant documents in the case be served to VeryDarkMan through his attorney, Deji Adeyanju.
The Falanas have filed separate lawsuits against the defendant, each seeking N500 million in damages for a video he shared on his social media accounts, in which he claimed they received N10 million from Idris Okuneye, known as Bobrisky, to obstruct justice.
In their legal actions, the father and son contended that the defendant was aware that his statements were unverified and false, yet he chose to publish them recklessly, thereby damaging their reputation.
The plaintiffs further asserted that the purportedly defamatory content continues to circulate on the defendant’s online platforms, thereby perpetuating harm to their reputation for as long as the content remains accessible.
In light of this, VDM sought permission from the court to appeal the decision.
He additionally argued that a denial from the court would constitute a miscarriage of justice, given that the case raises important legal issues that warrant additional examination.
He stated, “A refusal to grant leave may result in the enforcement of a decision that does not reflect a correct application of the law, leading to outcomes that may be detrimental not only to the parties involved but also to the administration of justice as a whole.
“The appellate court’s role in clarifying and, where necessary, correcting trial court decisions are vital in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.”…..For More READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE ▶▶
