The Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) has asked a Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja to dismiss, in its entirety, a suit filed by Meta Platforms Incorporated challenging the fine it imposed on the organisation.
The NDPC had on February 18, 2025, imposed a remedial fee of $32.8 million and eight corrective orders against the social media giant, which operates Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
The American multinational technology company was alleged to have violated the fundamental privacy rights of its Nigerian users with respect to behavioural advertising on Facebook and Instagram.
Dissatisfied with the action, Meta Platforms, in a motion ex-parte dated and filed on February 26, dragged the regulatory agency to court as sole respondent.
In the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/355/2025 and moved by Mr Fred Onuofia (SAN) on March 4, Justice James Omotosho granted one of the two orders sought.
The judge had granted leave to Meta to commence proceedings by way of judicial-review seeking, inter alia, an order of certiorari quashing the compliance and enforcement orders dated February 18 issued by NDPC against the company, “and all other investigations, proceedings and actions taken by respondent against the applicant leading to the Final Orders.”
He, however, refused to grant Meta’s relief seeking a stay of the proceedings of all matters relating to the “Final Orders” issued by NDPC against it, pending the hearing and determination of the judicial review proceedings.
Instead, the judge made an order of accelerated hearing of the suit.
The firm, in its originating summons filed by the lead counsel, Mr Gbolahan Elias, wants the court to determine whether NDPC’s investigative process and ensuing compliance and enforcement orders (the Final Orders) issued on February 18 were invalid, null and void.
Meta, in its application dated and filed March 19, hinged the question on the allegation that the commission failed to provide it with adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard on alleged violations of the NDP Act prior to issuing the Final Orders.
Meta argued that such action violated its due process rights, including its right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among other reliefs.
But NDPC, in a preliminary objection to Meta’s suit, told the court that the suit is incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same.
The regulatory agency, in its application dated April 10 and filed April 11 by its lawyer and the head, Alpha & Rohi Law Firm, Mr Adeola Adedipe (SAN), urged the court to either strike out or dismiss the case.
Mr Adedipe, in two grounds of argument, submitted that the originating summons filed by the company is incompetent for non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Order 34 Rule 6(1) of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
He also argued that the suit, as presently constituted, is grossly incompetent and academic, the reliefs sought therein, not being capable of activating the jurisdiction of the court.
“The suit is liable to be struck out/dismissed, in limine,” Mr Adedipe argued.
The NDPC, in the affidavit attached to the preliminary objection, stated that by an ex-parte motion, Meta Inc. filed the case.
The commission said that the company had filed the suit, seeking leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the respondent taken on February 18.
It averred that there was a statement made pursuant to Order 34 of the Rules of the court, supporting the said application, containing the company’s two reliefs.
It said the court granted permission on March 4 for Meta to commence the proceeding, by way of judicial review.
According to the respondent, the originating summons filed by the plaintiff was commenced on 19th March, 2025, 15 days after leave was granted for the judicial review proceedings to be commenced.
NDPC, however, contended that the reliefs contained in the originating summons were completely different from the reliefs contained in the statement filed to support the ex-parte application for judicial review.
The commission also said it would be in the interest of justice for its objection to be sustained.
Also, in a counter affidavit deposed to by NDPC ‘s staff, Mr Osunleye Olatubosun, in opposition to the originating summons filed by Meta on March 19, he said the suit was brought under the judicial review procedure, primarily, to contest the decision of his office against Meta.
Mr Olatubosun averred that in the NDPC‘s decision, Meta was sanctioned after a protracted and thorough process of investigation.
He said the investigative power of the commission was activated by a petition written by an organisation, the Personal Data Protection Awareness Initiative (PDPAI).
The PDPAI had alleged that the company breached the data protection rights of users of Facebook and Instagram.
He averred that in the said petition, the plaintiff was alleged to be engaging in behavioural advertising without obtaining explicit consent of data subjects (users).
He said compelling evidence were provided in support of the petition, revealing Meta’s private policy showing that it conducted behavioural advertising, without obtaining consent from the data subjects.