Meta Platforms Inc. has filed an appeal against a Lagos State High Court judgment that awarded $25,000 in damages to Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana.

The appeal, dated April 10, stems from Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025, in which Justice O. A. Oresanya held that a video publication infringed on Falana’s rights, according to TheCable.

In a notice of appeal submitted by its legal team led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, Meta is seeking to have the judgment set aside in its entirety.

Meta argued that the case was improperly initiated under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules instead of being filed as a defamation action.

The company maintained that the claims involve allegations of false publication and reputational damage, which it said fall outside the scope of constitutional fundamental rights enforcement.

Meta further contended that the trial court, presided over by O. A. Oresanya, wrongly assumed jurisdiction by hearing the matter as a fundamental rights suit rather than a defamation claim involving Femi Falana.

The tech giant also challenged the court’s reliance on the doctrine of undisclosed principal in establishing liability.
The company argued that there was no evidence of a principal–agent relationship between itself and the publisher of the video, identified as AfriCare Health Centre.

It further maintained that the content in question was created and uploaded by an independent third party, stressing that Meta neither originated nor exercised control over the publication.

Meta also challenged the court’s finding that it breached provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, arguing that it was wrongly classified as a data controller.

The company maintained that there was no evidence it determined the purpose or means of processing the personal data involved in the case.

Meta described the $25,000 damages awarded to Femi Falana as “unjustified” and urged the appellate court to set it aside.

It further alleged a denial of fair hearing, claiming that the trial judge, O. A. Oresanya, raised key issues suo motu without giving parties an opportunity to respond.

Meta noted that the court failed to consider several key arguments it presented in its defence before delivering judgment.