VeryDarkMan, a social media critic, has filed an application at the Lagos State High Court seeking leave to appeal.
The appeal challenges the October 14, 2024, ruling by Justice M.O. Dawodu, which favored human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and his son, musician Folarin Falana (Falz), in a defamation lawsuit.
Falana and his son sued VeryDarkMan, seeking a retraction of allegedly defamatory statements made against them in a recorded conversation involving popular cross-dresser Idris Okuneye, also known as Bobrisky, about financial assistance and legal intervention after Bobrisky was detained for naira abuse.
Advertisement
Falana’s legal team answered VeryDarkMan, the author of the social media post suggesting Falz was involved in a conspiracy to secure a presidential pardon for Bobrisky, who has encountered legal issues, in a letter dated September 26, 2024, signed by Taiwo Olawanle and uploaded on Falz’s Instagram page.
According to documents, Bobrisky allegedly sought legal counsel and financial aid from Falz, requesting N3 million to bribe correctional facility authorities for VIP treatment during his confinement.
In his October 14 verdict, Justice Dawodu ordered VeryDarkMan, his agents, and collaborators to delete the defamatory video and comments against the Falanas, which were released on September 24, 2024, from all of his social media handles, pending compliance with the court’s pre-action protocol.
The court also prohibited him from releasing, publishing, or spreading any more defamatory videos or comments regarding the Falanas.
However, in two separate petitions on notice obtained by The PUNCH on Monday, marked ID/8584/GCM/2024 (between him and Falz) and ID/8586/GCM/2024 (where Femi Falana is the lone respondent), VeryDarkMan requested that the court extend the time to seek leave to appeal the court’s verdict.
In the request, based on seven grounds and dated October 18, VeryDarkMan contended 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 noted that the court’s refusal would be a miscarriage of justice because the case includes serious legal issues that require further review.
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 is vital in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.”
In an affidavit testified to by legal practitioner Oladimeji Joseph, he indicated that he is aware of the court’s particular conclusions regarding VeryDarkMan’s incapacity to reimburse the claimant if the judgement is reversed, and hence wishes to appeal the court’s decision.
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 pleaded with the court to approve the applicant’s request.
