Martins Otse, known as VeryDarkMan, a notable social media critic, has submitted an application to the Lagos State High Court seeking permission to appeal the ruling issued on October 14, 2024, by Justice M.O. Dawodu. This ruling favored human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and his son, Folarin Falana, also recognized as Falz, in a case concerning alleged defamation.
Falana and his son initiated legal proceedings against VeryDarkMan, seeking a retraction of purportedly defamatory remarks made during a recorded discussion with well-known cross-dresser Idris Okuneye, commonly referred to as Bobrisky, concerning financial support and legal aid during Bobrisky’s detention for naira abuse.
On September 26, 2024, a letter signed by Taiwo Olawanle was shared on Falz’s Instagram page. In this correspondence, Falana’s legal team responded to VeryDarkMan, the individual behind the social media post claiming that Falz was implicated in a scheme to obtain a presidential pardon for Bobrisky, who has encountered legal issues.
Documents indicate that Bobrisky reportedly sought legal counsel and financial support from Falz, requesting N3 million to facilitate VIP treatment from correctional centre officials during his detention.
On October 14, Justice Dawodu ordered VeryDarkMan, along with his agents and associates, to eliminate the defamatory video and comments regarding the Falanas, which were published on September 24, 2024, from all his social media accounts and pages, pending adherence to the court’s pre-action protocol.
The court has also prohibited him from releasing, publishing, or circulating any defamatory videos or comments regarding the Falanas.
On Monday, VeryDarkMan filed two separate motions on notice, identified as ID/8584/GCM/2024 (in the matter involving Falz) and ID/8586/GCM/2024 (where Femi Falana is the sole respondent). He is requesting an order from the court to extend the time to seek leave to appeal the court’s ruling.
In the motion, dated October 18 and consisting of seven grounds, VeryDarkMan contended that “the court order was based solely on the respondent’s affidavit.”
The court’s permission is necessary to exercise the constitutional right to appeal, as this is an interlocutory order.
He argued that although “it is at the court’s discretion to grant or refuse leave to appeal, such discretion should be exercised judicially and judiciously.”
He stated that a denial by the court would constitute a miscarriage of justice, given that the case raises important legal issues that warrant additional examination.
He stated, “A refusal to grant leave may result in the enforcement of a decision that does not accurately apply the law, leading to outcomes that could be harmful not only to the parties involved but also to the broader administration of justice.”
The role of the appellate court in clarifying and, when necessary, correcting trial court decisions is essential for upholding the integrity of the judicial system.
In an affidavit submitted by legal practitioner Oladimeji Joseph, he indicated his awareness of the court’s specific findings concerning VeryDarkMan’s inability to compensate the claimant in the event that the judgment is unfavorable to him, and thus seeks to appeal the court’s ruling.
Joseph further stated, “I am certain that leave from this Honourable Court must be obtained prior to the Defendant’s ability to appeal the ruling.”
“The Defendant is required to seek the leave of this Honourable Court and file an appeal within 14 days from the date of the ruling.”
He requested that the court approve the applicant’s request.
ALSO READ:
Authorities Are Questioning An Abia Lawmaker Regarding An Alleged Assault Involving A Bolt Driver.
