Monday, April 13, 2026 - Global technology company, Meta Platforms, Inc., has approached the Court of Appeal challenging the judgment of the Lagos State High Court, which entered judgment in favour of human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) in a fundamental rights enforcement suit.
The appeal, dated April 10, 2026, arose from Suit No.
LD/18843MFHR/2025 between Falana and Meta, wherein Justice O. A. Oresanya
awarded the sum of $25,000 as damages over a video publication alleged to have
violated the applicant’s fundamental rights.
In its Notice of Appeal filed by the legal team led by
Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN), the appellant formulated eight grounds of appeal
challenging both the jurisdiction of the trial court and the merits of the
decision.
A pertinent issue raised in the appeal is whether the lower
court was right to assume jurisdiction under the Fundamental Rights
(Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
Meta contended that the respondent’s claims were, in
substance, founded on alleged false publication and reputational injury, which
properly fell within the ambit of defamation law and not fundamental rights
enforcement.
The appellant argued that by entertaining the suit under the
Fundamental Rights procedure, the trial court “wrongly assumed jurisdiction
over a matter outside its constitutional competence.”
On the issue of liability, Meta challenged the finding of
the trial court, which held it liable under the doctrine of undisclosed
principal.
It submitted that there was no evidence before the court
establishing any principal-agent relationship between it and the publisher of
the impugned video, identified as AfriCare Health Centre.
Meta maintained that the content in dispute was generated
and published by an independent third party, and that as an intermediary
platform, it neither originated nor exercised editorial control over the
material.
The appellant further faulted the trial court’s conclusion
that it breached Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act.
It argued that it was erroneously classified as a data
controller, contending that there was no evidence to show that it determined
the purpose or means of processing the personal data contained in the
publication.
Meta also challenged the award of $25,000 damages in favour
of the respondent, describing the award as “unwarranted and not supported by
the evidence before the court,” and urged the appellate court to set it aside.
Additionally, the appellant raised the issue of denial of a
fair hearing, alleging that the trial court suo motu raised and determined
issues without affording the parties an opportunity to address the court.
It further contended that the court failed to consider and
pronounce on critical arguments canvassed in its defence.
Meta is, therefore, seeking an order of the Court of Appeal
allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the trial court in its
entirety.
0 Comments