ABUJA, Nigeria (VOICE OF NAIJA)- Global technology company, Meta Platforms, Inc., has approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the judgment of the Lagos State High Court, which ruled in favour of human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) in a fundamental rights enforcement suit.
The appeal, dated April 10, 2026, arose from Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025 between Falana and Meta, in which Justice O. A. Oresanya awarded $25,000 in damages over a video publication alleged to have violated the applicant’s fundamental rights.
In its Notice of Appeal filed by a legal team led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN), the appellant raised eight grounds of appeal challenging both the jurisdiction of the trial court and the merits of its decision.
A key issue raised in the appeal is whether the lower court was right to assume jurisdiction under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
Meta argued that the respondent’s claims were essentially based on alleged false publication and reputational damage, which fall under defamation law rather than fundamental rights enforcement.
READ ALSO: Falana Sues Meta For $5m Over Privacy Invasion
The company further stated that by hearing the case under the Fundamental Rights procedure, the trial court “wrongly assumed jurisdiction over a matter outside its constitutional competence.”
On liability, Meta challenged the trial court’s finding that it was responsible under the doctrine of undisclosed principal.
It argued that no evidence was presented to establish any principal-agent relationship between it and the publisher of the disputed video, AfriCare Health Centre.
Meta maintained that the content in question was created and published by an independent third party, stressing that as an intermediary platform, it neither produced nor exercised editorial control over the material.
The appellant also faulted the trial court’s finding that it violated Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act.
It argued that it was wrongly classified as a data controller, insisting there was no evidence that it determined the purpose or means of processing the personal data contained in the publication.
Meta further challenged the $25,000 damages awarded to Falana, describing it as “unwarranted and not supported by the evidence before the court,” and urged the appellate court to set it aside.
It also alleged a denial of fair hearing, claiming that the trial court raised and determined issues suo motu without giving parties an opportunity to respond.
The company further argued that the court failed to consider and pronounce on key arguments raised in its defence.
Meta is therefore asking the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.