Court Orders VeryDarkMan to Delete Defamatory Video against Falana, Falz

•As applicants demand 1bn as damages

Wale Igbintade

A Lagos State High Court has restrained Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, his agents, and privies from further releasing, publishing, or circulating any defamatory videos/comments about lawyer and human rights advocate, Femi Falana, SAN, and his son, Folarin Falana (aka Falz), pending compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol of the court.

Justice M. 0. Dawodu, in a ruling delivered on October 14 on two separate suits filed by Falana and Falz, also ordered the defendant (VeryDarkMan) to bring down the defamatory video/comments about the applicants published on September 24 on all his online social media handles/pages, pending compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol of the court.

The applicants, had in suits marked ID/8584/GCM/2024 and ID/8586GCM/2024AN prayed the court for an order  of interim/pre-emptive remedy restraining the defendant, his agents, privies and/or anybody from further circulating or publishing any defamatory video/comments about the applicants, and to bring down the defamatory video/comments about the Applicant published on September 24, 2024 on all his online social media handles/pages pending compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol filed before the court.

In their memorandum of claims, brought pursuant to Order 5 Rule 1(2)(E) of the High Court of Lagos State, the applicants demanded apology on all the defendant’s social media handles/pages for the defamatory words contained in the video complained about and a full retraction of same, including bringing all the offensive videos down online.

They also demanded that the defendant restrain his online followers, agents or servants or otherwise from further publishing or causing to be published the said similar words/videos defamatory to the claimant.

They demanded, “Payment of the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira only) each to the applicants as damages for the defamation of character contained in the online publication of September 24, 2024.”

The claimants, by an ex-parte Originating Application dated October 9, 2024, prayed the court for the following reliefs: applicant to serve the Pre-Action Bundles, Originating Processes and all other court processes between parties herein on the defendant by substituted means through his Lawyer, Deji Adeyanju of Deji Adeyanju & Partners at Terrace Block D4, White Diamond Estate, Makuru Street, Off Embu Street, Off Aminu Kano, Wuse Il, Abuja.

“Such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this ex-parte application,” they added.

The applicants stated that the defendant in the alleged unverified audio recording of a one-sided narrative by the alleged Bobrisky, said Bobrisky never said the claimant/applicant herein collected N10 million from him, yet the defendant recklessly stated that Falana collected N10 million from Bobrisky.

They stated that the defendant’s said online publication contained multiple allegations and he did not expect the claimant, who was a lawyer to the late Fela Anikulapo Kuti, whom everyone respected, to “engage in something like this?”.

The applicants stated that the defendant knew all his comments were not true and not verified yet he proceeded to recklessly publish same to injure the reputation of the applicants.

They added that the said defamatory publication was still trending on the defendant’s several online handles/pages and the injury to the applicant’s reputation was continuing as long as the publication remained online.

They maintained that the interest of justice will be better served in hearing and granting the instant ex parte application for interim/pre-emptive remedy.

ln support of the application was a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the applicants, and written addresses dated October 9, 2024 respectively.

Dawodu, in two separate rulings, held, “I have carefully reviewed all the depositions in the affidavits and exhibits submitted by the applicant. I have also reviewed and considered in details the submissions of counsel as contained in the written address. Based on the processes filed, I find it expedient to raise only one issue for determination, and it is as follows:

“Whether from the facts and evidence presented before the Court, the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court?

“From the facts as contained in the affidavits filed before the court, the applicant has alleged that the defendant, through his social media platforms such as X app (formerly Twitter) as @thatverydarkmnn and on the Instagram app as @verydarkblackman published a video containing statements that were defamatory and injurious to the public image of the applicant.

“According to the applicant, the defendant knew these statements were false and untrue but proceeded to publish them to injure the applicant’s reputation. Furthermore, the defamatory statements are still trending on the defendant’s several online platforms, and the injury to the applicant’s reputation continues as long as the publication remains online.

“The actions of the defendant have necessitated the applicant to file this ex-parte application for pre-emptive remedies to prevent further acts of mischief that damages may not remedy, should the court find in favour of the applicant.

“From the Practice Direction, there is no doubt that the court has the inherent jurisdiction and powers to grant the pre-emptive remedies as sought by the applicant in this matter.”

Paragraph 1 of the Pre-emptive Remedies in the Practice Direction No.2 of 2019 on Pre-Action Protocol provides thus, “Where in the interest of justice or to prevent irreparable damage or serious mischief, there is a need for pre-emptive remedies to be ordered by the Court, the affected party must file either the memorandum of claim with its accompanying documents and the memorandum for settlement, in the case of a claimant or the response to the memorandum of claim with its accompanying documents, in the case of a Respondent together with an ex-parte originating application for the pre-emptive remedy sought supported by an affidavit and a written address in the registry.”

From the processes filed, the applicant had undoubtedly filed the necessary documents to warrant the court exercising its discretion in his favour.

it is worth noting that the primary relief sought by the applicant was akin to the court granting an interim order of injunction.

The difference was that while the ex-parte application for pre-emptive remedy was an originating process that initiated an action and was heard by the court on its own. The motion ex-parte for an interim injunction must be filed along with other originating processes before the court could hear it.

The purpose of the application was to preserve the res from irreversible destruction or damage before the matter was properly filed before the court. The res, in this case, is the reputation of the applicant as stated in the affidavit in support of the application.