Meta Platforms, Inc. has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Lagos against a judgement of a lower court awarding $25,000 in damages to human rights lawyer Femi Falana over a video publication that allegedly violated his privacy.
The company’s notice of appeal was dated 10 April to contest in a January 2026 judgement delivered by Olalekan Oresanya of the Lagos State High Court in Tafawa Balewa Square (TBS) in the suit marked LD/18843MFHR/2025.
|
|
In the judgement, the lower court ruled in favour of Mr Falana, who is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
Mr Falana reportedly filed the fundamental rights enforcement suit following a video clip posted on Facebook, one of Meta’s social media platforms, by a third-party user, AfriCare Health Centre, which allegedly portrayed the senior advocate in a false and damaging light.
|
|
|
|---|
The court found that Meta breached Section 24 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act by processing data that was inaccurate, harmful, and lacked a lawful basis.
It rejected the company’s argument that it was merely an intermediary platform. It held that a global technology company that hosts and monetises content owes a duty of care to those affected by what is published on its platform.
The court also held that being a public figure does not strip an individual of the right to privacy, stressing that medical information attracts a higher level of legal protection.
Mr Falana, who filed the suit through his lawyer, Olumide Babalola, has yet to respond to the appeal.
Meta faults judgement on appeal
However, Meta, through its lawyers led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, also a SAN, argued that the trial court’s decision was legally flawed, raising eight grounds of appeal bordering on jurisdiction, misinterpretation of statutes, wrongful imposition of liability, and breach of fair hearing.
According to court documents shared with PREMIUM TIMES on Sunday, the appeal’s six grounds rest on the trial court’s interpretation of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA).
The company argued that the judge erred by holding that the provision applies strictly to writs of summons, thereby excluding other originating processes such as the motion used by Mr Falana.
Meta maintained that Section 95 of the same law clearly defines a writ broadly to include “any writ or process” used to commence a suit. By failing to read both provisions together, the trial court, according to the appellant, adopted an unduly narrow interpretation that led to a wrongful dismissal of its preliminary objection.
The company also faulted the trial court for classifying the case as a fundamental rights enforcement action under Section 37 of the Nigerian constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy.
According to the appellant, the substance of Mr Falana’s claims relates to alleged false statements and reputational harm arising from a video posted by a third party. It stated that the issues properly fall within the realm of tort law, particularly defamation, rather than constitutional rights enforcement.
The company argued that by mischaracterising the claim, the trial court assumed jurisdiction it did not possess and applied the wrong legal principles in determining liability.
The appellant insisted that it merely provides a hosting service and does not create, edit, or publish user-generated content.
It said the video in question was produced and uploaded by AfriCare Health Centre, an independent third party, with no agency relationship linking it to Meta.
Meta further argued that the trial court wrongly invoked the doctrine of an “undisclosed principal” to hold it liable, despite the absence of any evidence that it acted on behalf of the content creator.
“The doctrine of undisclosed principal presupposes an agency relationship, which was neither pleaded nor established,” the company argued in its filing.
Duty to monitor content
The company also challenged the trial court’s finding that it had a legal obligation to ensure that all content posted on its platform complies with users’ constitutional right to privacy.
Meta described this as an erroneous imposition of a duty to pre-screen or monitor user content, noting that no Nigerian law imposes such an obligation on intermediary platforms.
It added that it acted responsibly by removing the video promptly upon becoming aware of the complaint, even before it was formally served with court processes.
Meta further accused the trial court of raising and deciding the issue of vicarious liability on its own (suo motu) without giving the company an opportunity to respond.
It argued that this violated its constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
The appellant maintained that there was no evidence to support a finding of vicarious liability, as the third-party publisher was neither its employee nor agent, and there was no proof that it authorised or approved the video.
Data protection issues
On the application of the Nigerian Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023, Meta disputed the trial court’s conclusion that it acted as a “data controller” or “joint controller” of the disputed content.
The company argued that being a platform provider does not automatically confer such status, which requires participation in determining the purpose and means of data processing.
It said there was no evidence that it played any role in the creation or dissemination of the video beyond hosting it.
Meta is also contesting the award of damages, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant such a prayer in a fundamental rights action based on alleged breach of privacy.
READ ALSO: Court dismisses sowore’s suit against SSS, Meta
The appellant contended, while citing the Supreme Court, that damages in fundamental rights cases are limited to specific circumstances, such as unlawful detention or compulsory acquisition of property, which do not apply in this case.
Meta urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Also, it urged the court to dismiss Mr Falana’s claims for lacking merit.
At the time of filing this report, no hearing date has been fixed for the appeal.
