Tuesday, October 29, 2024 – Social critic
Martins Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, has applied to the Lagos State
High Court for leave to appeal the ruling delivered on October 14, 2024, by
Justice M.O. Dawodu in favour of human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and his
son, Folarin Falana, also known as Falz, in an alleged defamation suit.
Falana and his son filed a lawsuit against VeryDarkMan, demanding a
retraction of allegedly defamatory statements made against them in a recorded
conversation involving popular cross-dresser Idris Okuneye, also known as
Bobrisky, regarding financial assistance and legal intervention when Bobrisky
was detained for naira abuse.
n a letter dated September 26, 2024, signed by Taiwo Olawanle and posted
on Falz’s Instagram page, Falana’s legal team addressed VeryDarkMan, the author
of the social media post alleging that Falz was involved in a scheme to secure
a presidential pardon for Bobrisky, who has faced legal troubles.
According to documents, Bobrisky allegedly requested legal advice and
financial assistance from Falz, asking for N3 million to pay correctional
centre officials to secure VIP treatment during his detention.
In
the ruling on October 14, Justice Dawodu directed VeryDarkMan, his agents, and
associates to remove the defamatory video and comments about the Falanas
published on September 24, 2024, from all his social media handles and pages,
pending compliance with the court’s pre-action protocol.
The
court also restrained him from further releasing, publishing, or circulating
any defamatory videos or comments about the Falanas.
However, VeryDarkMan, in two separate motions on notice marked
ID/8584/GCM/2024 (between him and Falz) and ID/8586/GCM/2024 (where Femi Falana
is the sole respondent), sought an order from the court to extend the time to
seek leave to appeal the court’s ruling.
Punch
reports that in the motion, based on seven grounds and dated October 18,
VeryDarkMan argued that “the court order was based solely on the respondent’s
affidavit.”
Being an interlocutory order, the court’s permission to exercise his
constitutional right to appeal is required.
He
contended that while “it is at the court’s discretion to grant or refuse leave
to appeal, such discretion should be exercised judicially and judiciously.”
He
added that a refusal by the court would amount to a miscarriage of justice, as
the case involves significant legal questions that merit further review.
“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 is vital in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.”
In
an affidavit deposed to by legal practitioner Oladimeji Joseph, he stated that
he is aware of the court’s specific findings regarding VeryDarkMan’s inability
to compensate the claimant if the judgment goes against him, and therefore
seeks to appeal the court’s ruling.
Joseph
further stated,
“I
know for a fact that leave from this Honourable Court must be obtained before
the Defendant can appeal against the ruling. The Defendant has 14 days from the
date of the ruling within which he must seek the leave of this Honourable Court
and file an appeal.”
He
urged the court to grant the applicant’s request.
0 Comments