An Ikeja High Court on Thursday fixed till 19 February to hear a preliminary objection filed by Martins Otse, also known as Verydarkblackman (VDM), challenging a defamation suit against him.
A human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) and his son, Folarin, known as Falz, filed the defamatory suit against VDM.
|
|
Mr Falana filed the suit following an audio recording of a one-sided narrative by a cross-dresser, Bobrisky, alleging perversion of justice by Falana and their son.
However, VDM, through his counsel, Marvin Omorogbe, filed a preliminary objection challenging the suit’s competence and the court’s jurisdiction.
|
|
|---|
When the case was called on Thursday, the defendant’s counsel informed the court that the plaintiffs had filed a counter-affidavit against his preliminary objection.
He said the counter affidavit was made available to him on Wednesday.
Mr Omorogbe, therefore, requested more time to respond to the counter-affidavit. The plaintiffs’ counsel, Omotade Omotunbosun, did not object to the application for adjournment.
After the development, Judge Matthias Dawodu adjourned the case until 19 February for a hearing, underscoring the gravity of the legal proceedings.
Preliminary application
In the preliminary application, VDM, through his counsel, presented a detailed legal argument. He argued that by the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1(4) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, the court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
According to Mr Omorogbe, VDM is domiciled and operates outside the court’s jurisdiction in Abuja. He also submitted that the alleged defamatory publication was made in Abuja. He, therefore, urged the court to strike out the suit.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that on the last proceeding, on 14 November 2024, the court adjourned until 23 January to hear the alleged defamation suit against VDM.
On that date, counsel to Falana and Falz, Muiz Banire (SAN), informed the court that the claimants had filed the originating process and served to the parties.
READ ALSO: Court adjourns Falana’s defamation suit against VDM (UPDATED)
Mr Banire also mentioned that a motion on notice was served on 25 October 2024, but the court said the originating process was not before it.
However, the claimant’s counsel prayed the court to adjourn the case so that he could file an administrative process.
In his response, Mr Omorogbe urged the court to strike out the suit, arguing that no valid writ of summons was before it.
He argued that the writ already filed was invalid as it was not before the court.
NAN also reports that the court had, on 14 October 2024, exercised its authority by ordering VDM to remove the alleged defamatory video from his social platform, which he had posted on 24 September 2024, against the plaintiffs.
The court ordered following an ex parte originating application filed by Falana and his son against VDM’s actions.
(NAN)
