Meta Moves To Appeal Court Over $25,000 Damages Award In Falana Case

Global technology firm 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, signaling the beginning of a potentially far-reaching legal contest over digital rights, platform responsibility, and the enforcement of fundamental rights in Nigeria.

According to credible reports, the appeal dated April 10, 2026, follows the decision in Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025, where Justice O. A. Oresanya ruled in favour of Falana and awarded damages of $25,000 over a video publication said to have infringed on his rights.

Meta’s legal representatives, led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, submitted a Notice of Appeal outlining eight grounds challenging both the procedural handling and substantive conclusions of the High Court’s ruling. Central to the appeal is a jurisdictional argument questioning whether the matter was properly classified under fundamental rights enforcement. The company maintains that the claims primarily relate to alleged false publication and reputational harm, which it argues fall within defamation law rather than constitutional rights enforcement.

The firm contended that the lower court erred by assuming jurisdiction under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, insisting that the case was mischaracterised from the outset. It also disputed the finding of liability based on the doctrine of an undisclosed principal, arguing that no evidence established a principal-agent relationship between it and the publisher of the disputed video, identified as AfriCare Health Centre.

Meta further maintained that the video in question was produced and uploaded by an independent third party, stressing that as a digital intermediary platform, it neither created nor exercised editorial control over the content.

Additionally, the company challenged the court’s conclusion that it breached provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, particularly Section 24(1)(a) and (e), arguing that it was wrongly designated as a data controller. It insisted there was no proof that it determined the purpose or means of processing the personal data referenced in the publication.

The appeal also faulted the $25,000 damages awarded to Falana, describing the sum as unjustified and urging the appellate court to overturn both the monetary award and the entire judgment of the lower court.

Meta raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings, alleging that it was denied a fair hearing. The company claimed the trial court introduced and ruled on certain issues without inviting submissions from the parties, and further argued that key aspects of its defence were not adequately considered before the final decision was reached.