Court Orders VeryDarkMan to Pay ₦30 Million for Defaming Mr Jollof’s Wife in Landmark Social Media Case
A Federal High Court sitting in Effurun has ordered popular social media commentator VeryDarkMan to pay ₦30 million in damages to Esinjemiyotan Uruneyonjuyei Atsepoyi, the wife of comedian Mr Jollof, over defamatory statements made during a heated online dispute.
The case stemmed from an online clash in September 2024 between VeryDarkMan and Mr Jollof, during which VeryDarkMan allegedly accused Mrs Atsepoyi of engaging in adultery with politicians and internet fraudsters to secure political appointments for her husband in Delta State. The comments sparked outrage and prompted Mrs Atsepoyi to file a ₦500 million defamation suit against the influencer.
In a judgment delivered on May 13, 2026, Hon. Justice R. Harriman ruled that the statements were defamatory in their ordinary meaning and actionable under the law. The court awarded ₦20 million as general damages and an additional ₦10 million as aggravated damages after finding that VeryDarkMan failed to provide evidence to support his claims.
Beyond the monetary penalty, the court directed VeryDarkMan to publish a public apology within 14 days in two national newspapers and across all his social media platforms, retracting the defamatory statements. The ruling also issued an injunction restraining him from making any further defamatory publications against the claimant.
Justice Harriman noted that the wide spread of the statements online justified both the damages and the public apology, emphasizing the need to restore the claimant’s reputation after the viral allegations.
Opinion: This Ruling Sends a Strong Message About Accountability on Social Media
The judgment against VeryDarkMan is more than a personal legal loss — it highlights the growing consequences of unchecked accusations in Nigeria’s digital space. Social media has given influencers enormous reach, but this case shows that influence does not place anyone above the law.
In recent years, online feuds among celebrities and public figures have increasingly crossed into defamation, with accusations made for attention, retaliation, or clout. What makes this ruling significant is that it reinforces the idea that viral statements can carry real legal consequences, especially when they damage someone’s personal reputation without proof.
For many observers, this could serve as a warning to content creators who often treat social media disputes as entertainment. Public platforms may feel informal, but the law sees published accusations as serious statements, particularly when they concern allegations of infidelity, corruption, or criminal conduct.
The case also raises an important social question: should influencers be held to a higher standard because of their audience size? Many would argue yes. When someone commands millions of followers, unverified claims can spread faster than any retraction ever could.
Ultimately, the court’s decision may mark a turning point in how online personalities approach public accusations. In an era where a single livestream can damage a person’s reputation overnight, this judgment reminds everyone that freedom of speech does not cancel responsibility.
