Meta Platforms, Inc., global technology company, has filed an appeal against the judgment of the Lagos State High Court delivered in favour of Femi Falana, human rights lawyer, setting the stage for a potentially significant legal battle over digital rights, platform liability, and the enforcement of fundamental rights in Nigeria.
The appeal, dated April 10, 2026, follows the ruling in Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025: Falana v. Meta Platforms, Inc., in which Justice O. A. Oresanya ruled in favour of Falana and awarded damages of $25,000 over a video publication alleged to have violated his rights.
Meta’s legal team, led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, filed a Notice of Appeal containing eight grounds challenging both the procedural and substantive basis of the High Court’s decision.
At the centre of the appeal is a jurisdictional dispute over whether the case should have been treated as a fundamental rights enforcement matter.
Meta argued that the trial court erred by entertaining the suit under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, maintaining that the claims were essentially based on alleged false publication and reputational damage.
According to the company, such claims properly fall within the scope of defamation law, rather than constitutional rights enforcement.
Meta contended that by allowing the case to proceed as a fundamental rights action, the trial court assumed jurisdiction it did not possess.
The company also challenged the court’s finding of liability based on the doctrine of undisclosed principal.
Meta argued that there was no evidence establishing a principal-agent relationship between the company and the publisher of the disputed video, identified as AfriCare Health Centre.
The technology firm maintained that the video was created and uploaded by an independent third party and not by Meta itself.
It further emphasised that as a digital intermediary platform, it neither originated nor exercised editorial control over the material.
In addition, the appeal questioned the trial court’s conclusion that Meta violated Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act.
Meta insisted that it was wrongly classified as a data controller in the case.
According to the company, there was no evidence showing that it determined the purpose or the means of processing the personal data involved in the disputed publication.
Meta also faulted the High Court’s decision to award $25,000 in damages to Falana.
The company described the award as unwarranted and urged the appellate court to set aside both the damages and the entire judgment delivered by the lower court.
Raising concerns about the conduct of the proceedings, Meta alleged that it was denied a fair hearing during the trial.
The company claimed that the trial court raised and decided certain issues suo motu without inviting submissions from the parties involved.
Meta further alleged that the court failed to properly consider key arguments presented in its defence before reaching its decision.
