Meta Files Appeal Against $25,000 Judgment in Falana Suit

Global technology company Meta Platforms, Inc. has filed an appeal against the judgment of the Lagos State High Court delivered in favour of human rights lawyer Femi Falana, setting the stage for a potentially precedent-setting legal battle over digital rights, platform liability, and the scope of fundamental rights enforcement in Nigeria.

The appeal, dated April 10, 2026, arises from Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025: Falana v. Meta Platforms, Inc., in which Justice O. A. Oresanya had ruled in favour of Falana and awarded damages of $25,000 over a video publication alleged to have violated his rights.

Meta’s Notice of Appeal, filed by its legal team led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, sets out eight grounds challenging both the procedural and substantive basis of the High Court’s decision.

At the heart of the appeal is a jurisdictional challenge.

Meta contended that the trial court erred in entertaining the suit as a fundamental rights enforcement action.

According to the company, the claims were essentially rooted in alleged false publication and reputational harm—issues that properly fall within the realm of defamation law rather than constitutional rights enforcement.

By allowing the matter to proceed under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, Meta argued, the court assumed jurisdiction it did not possess.

The company further disputed the trial court’s finding of liability based on the doctrine of undisclosed principal.

It argued that there was no evidence establishing any principal-agent relationship between Meta and the publisher of the video in question, identified as “AfriCare Health Centre.”

Meta maintained that the content was created and posted by an independent third party and that, as an intermediary platform, it neither originated nor exercised editorial control over the material.

In addition, the appeal challenged the court’s conclusion that Meta breached Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act.

The company insisted it was wrongly classified as a data controller, arguing that there was no evidence it determined either the purpose or the means of processing the personal data involved in the disputed publication.

Meta also faulted the award of $25,000 in damages to Falana, describing it as unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. It urged the appellate court to set aside the award along with the entire judgment.

Raising concerns about procedural fairness, Meta alleged that it was denied a fair hearing during the proceedings.

It claimed that the trial court raised and determined issues suo motu, without inviting submissions from the parties, while also failing to address key arguments presented in its defence.