The dispute centers around statements made during a recorded conversation, in which VeryDarkMan claimed that Falana and his son received N10 million from the prominent crossdresser Idris Okuneye, better known as Bobrisky, to obstruct justice.
In his ruling, Justice Dawodu also prohibited VeryDarkMan from publishing or sharing any additional defamatory content about Falana and Falz on his social media platforms until the lawsuit initiated by the duo is resolved.
VeryDarkMan has filed two separate motions with the court, requesting an extension of time to secure permission to appeal the ruling. Dated October 18, these motions cite seven grounds, asserting that the court’s decision was based solely on the respondent’s affidavit. He argues that, since this is an interlocutory order, he needs the court's permission to exercise his constitutional right to appeal.
He emphasized that while the court holds the discretion to grant or deny the appeal, such discretion should be exercised judiciously. He warned that a denial could lead to a miscarriage of justice, highlighting that the case raises significant legal questions deserving further examination.
“A refusal to grant leave may result in the enforcement of a ruling that misapplies the law, negatively impacting not just the parties involved but also the wider justice system,” he stated. “The appellate court's function in clarifying and correcting trial court decisions is essential for maintaining judicial integrity.”