- Meta Appeals $25,000 Judgment In Falana Case, Challenges Court Jurisdiction
- Firm denies liability, insists disputed video published by third party
- Company seeks reversal of $25,000 damages awarded to Falana
Global technology firm Meta Platforms, Inc. has filed an appeal against the Lagos State High Court judgment delivered in favour of human rights lawyer Femi Falana, escalating a legal dispute over digital rights and platform liability in Nigeria.
EDITOR’S PICKS
- JAMB Delists 23 CBT Centres, Warns 89 After Mock UTME Review
- NASA Astronauts Return to Earth After First Human Trip to the Moon in 50 Years
- INEC Shifts Nationwide Voter Revalidation Until After 2027 General Election
EKO HOT BLOG reports that the appeal, dated April 10, 2026, followed the ruling in Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025, where Justice O. A. Oresanya awarded Falana $25,000 in damages over a video publication alleged to have violated his fundamental rights.
Meta’s legal team, led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN), filed a Notice of Appeal containing eight grounds, challenging both the jurisdiction and conclusions of the trial court.
At the core of the appeal is whether the case was properly treated as a fundamental rights enforcement matter. Meta argued that the claims relate to alleged false publication and reputational harm, which fall under defamation law rather than constitutional rights.
The company maintained that the trial court erred by assuming jurisdiction under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, insisting the matter should not have been heard as a rights violation case.
Meta also challenged the finding that it was liable under the doctrine of undisclosed principal. It argued that there was no evidence of any principal-agent relationship between the company and AfriCare Health Centre, which was identified as the publisher of the disputed video.
According to the firm, the content was created and uploaded by a third party, and as a digital platform, it neither originated nor exercised editorial control over the material.
The appeal further disputed the court’s conclusion that Meta breached provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act. The company argued that it was wrongly classified as a data controller, stating there was no evidence it determined how the personal data in question was processed.
Meta also described the $25,000 damages awarded to Falana as unjustified and urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment.
Additionally, the company raised concerns over fair hearing, alleging that the trial court decided certain issues without inviting submissions from the parties and failed to consider key aspects of its defence before delivering judgment.
