JUST IN: Court Postpones Falanas’ Suit Against VDM

JUST IN: Court Postpones Falanas’ Suit Against VDM

The Lagos High Court has decided to postpone the hearing of a defamation case against social media influencer, Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), until January 23, 2025.

The lawsuit was filed against VDM by human rights advocate Femi Falana and his son Falz. During the court proceedings, it was noted that many of the necessary applications from both parties were not yet available in the court file, leading to the adjournment of the hearing date.

Previously, VDM appeared in court adorned in a red traditional outfit, accompanied by supporters, while the Falanas were not present.

This delay occurred as a result of missing documents needed for the case’s progression. In earlier events, the court had ruled in favor of an interim order requested by the Falanas to protect them against defamation.

VDM was instructed to remove a video deemed defamatory, which he had shared on September 24, 2025, involving the senior lawyer and his son.

Additionally, VDM was prohibited from releasing any more such content until the case was heard, and all legal communication in this matter was directed through VDM’s lawyer, Deji Adeyanju.

The Falanas had separately taken legal action against VDM, demanding N500 million in damages each for a video he had circulated online accusing them of receiving money improperly.

They contended that VDM knowingly spread false and damaging information, causing harm to their reputations.

The court’s rulings and orders emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the need for due legal process to be followed in resolving the dispute.

In their suits, the father and son submitted that the defendant knew all his comments were unverified and not true, yet he proceeded to publish the same to injure their reputation recklessly.

They also stated that the alleged defamatory publication is still trending on the defendant’s online handles and pages and as such, the injury to their reputation continues as long as the publication remains online.

In response, VDM applied to the court for leave to appeal the ruling.

Furthermore, He also submitted that a refusal by the court would amount to miscarriage of justice, as the case involves significant legal questions that merit further review.

He stated, “A refusal to grant leave may result in the enforcement of a decision that does not reflect a correct application of the law, leading to outcomes that may be detrimental not only to the parties involved but also to the administration of justice as a whole.

“The appellate court’s role in clarifying and, where necessary, correcting trial court decisions are vital in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.”