- Court had ordered VDM to bring down the alleged defamatory video that he made on September 24, 2025, against the SAN and his son
A Lagos High Court has adjourned the hearing of a defamation suit against social media influencer, Vincent Otse, aka VeryDarkMan till January 23, 2025.
The defamation suit was brought against VDM by human rights activist, Femi Falana and his son, Folarin, popularly known as Falz.
The case could not proceed because most of the applications filed by the parties are not yet in the court file. The court had to adjourn the hearing to January 23, 2025.
Recall that on October 14, Justice Matthias Dawodu while ruling on an exparte application for an order of interim and preemptive remedy brought by the Falanas, held that they have legal rights to be protected from being slandered.
The court also ordered VDM to bring down the alleged defamatory video that he made on September 24, 2025, against the SAN and his son.
Justice Dawodu also restrained the self-acclaimed social media police 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 further ordered that all the processes in the matter be served on VeryDarkMan through his lawyer, Deji Adeyanju.
The Falanas had dragged the defendant before the court in separate suits, claiming N500 million each as damages over a video he posted on his social media platforms alleging that they collected N10 million from Idris Okuneye, aka Bobrisky, to pervert the course of justice.
In their suits, the father and son submitted that the defendant knew all his comments were unverified and not true, 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 as such, the injury to their reputation continues as long as the publication remains online.
In response, VDM applied to the court for leave to appeal the ruling.
He also submitted that a refusal by the court would amount to miscarriage of justice, as the case involves significant legal questions that merit 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 are vital in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.”
Discussion about this post