Falana SAN, Folarin battle VDM January 23

Preemptive remedy proceedings ends after injunction is granted or refused. They have gone ahead to file a writ, using the same suit number as the preemptive remedy proceedings. And the court said no,  that a fresh writ of summons with a new suit number, needs to be filed. At this point my lord, we will be seeking for a date to hear our preliminary objection – Omorogbe

 

 

Emmanuel Thomas I Friday, Nov. 2024

 

IKEJA, Lagos, Nigeria – The legal luminary and foremost human right  lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN and his lovely son, Folarin have rolled up their sleeves ready to begin the legal battle with social media personality, Vincent Otse, better known as Verydarkman, VDM for alleged defamatory publications.

The matter coming up at the Ikeja High Court on Thursday Jan. 23 will determine how far social media personalities can go when they chose to dabble into the noble profession of journalism  for financial benefit without any formal training.

VDM is facing a defamatory suit for attempting to lower the reputation of the Senior Advocate of Nigeria Mr Femi Falana, and his son, Folarin, better known as Falz in the estimation of right thinking members of the society when he alleged that the Falana’s demanded various sums from Nigeria’s foremost crossdresser, Mr. Idris Okuneye better known as Bobrisky for an alleged presidential pardon and so on, following his conviction by a Federal High Court in Lagos.

When the case was called on Thursday, counsel to Falana and Falz, Mr Muiz Banire (SAN), informed the court that the claimants had filed  the originating process and served and had served the parties.

Banire also said a motion on notice was served on Oct. 25, but Justice Matthias Dawodu said the originating process was not before the court. The claimant’s counsel, however, prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable him file administrative processes.

“In this circumstance, my lord, the best thing to do is to adjourn the matter so that we can go back to the registry to file all the administrative processes,” Banire said.

In his response, counsel to VDM, Mr Marvin Omorogbe, said it had been observed that there was no valid writ of summon before the court. He, therefore, prayed the court to strike out the lawsuit. Omorogbe said he did not know how the registry of the court would prepare any administrative process.

He opined that the writ already filed was invalid as it was not before the court. He averred that the writ bears the same suit number as the preemptive remedy proceedings.

“Preemptive remedy proceedings ends after injunction is granted or refused. They have gone ahead to file a writ, using the same suit number as the preemptive remedy proceedings. And the court said no,  that a fresh writ of summons with a new suit number, needs to be filed. At this point my lord, we will be seeking for a date to hear our preliminary objection”.

Omorogbe further urged the court to withdraw a motion dated Oct. 18. He said the motion was a move to appeal on the ground that the claimants had admitted, there was an issue in respect to the preemptive proceedings.

Justice Dawodu, however, struck out the motion, following no objections from the claimants counsel.

“I will give you a date for hearing because we are talking about a writ that is not before the court,” Dawodu said. The judge thereafter adjourned the case until Jan.23, 2025 for hearing of the preliminary objections.