£95,000 Defamation Award: David Hundeyin Says British Court Has No Jurisdiction on the Internet

David Hundeyin in a recent interview has stated that the British Court which presided over his defamation case and delivered what he called a ‘kangaroo judgement’ has no jurisdiction over the internet and as such the judgement was laughable.

Defamation Judgement

In a judgment,  the Royal Courts of Justice, a British court, presided over by Justice Robin Knowles found Hundeyin guilty of libel and ordered him to pay the sum of £95,000 as damages to Charles Northcott, the British Broadcasting Corporations (BBC) Journalist who Hundeyin made certain allegations against in his “Journalism Career Graveyard” article.

Responding to the Judgement, Hundeyin noted “I suppose the judgment itself does not come as a surprise because this process started a year ago and I suspected this was where it would lead to.

“I stand by what I said because it was a factual story, it was not a bunch of allegations thrown about, everything was backed up in writing there was no attempt to controvert what was said in the story.”

Court’s Lack of Jurisdiction

David Hundeyin noted that a major problem he had with the judgment was the British court’s arrogation of jurisdiction to itself over a case that happened online and whose major actors are citizens of another country.

“What I am miffed about is the sheer arrogance with which everything was handled, a guy goes to the UK Court and sues me over a story published in Nigeria about Nigerian actors.

“The judge interprets jurisdiction as that anything published on the internet that is visible to UK residents is under the jurisdiction of a UK libel court.

“This means that anything published on the internet in other countries becomes enforceable in a British libel court sitting in London and if such a person is unwilling to appear in the court like myself, such individual has a default judgment issued against him.

He further noted that the entire case was not anchored on proving if he published something false but on whether he had the right to publish what the claimant saw as harmful to his reputation.

Hundeyin states that the judgement is going to set a dangerous precedent and lead to a situation where any content online that is accesible to British citizens regardless of its author and subject country is then actionable for libel in British courts.

As a result of this every online content ultimately becomes actionable for libel in a British court, due to the transnational nature of the internet.

“This means that anyone anywhere in the world publishing information about their own country can be brought before a British libel court sitting in London and if such a person is unwilling to appear in the court, such individual has a default judgment issued against him like myself.” He said.

Expert Opinion

Giving expert opinion on Hundeyin’s claims, Olugbenga Akinlabi, a Partner, Broadridge Legal Practitioners stated it is fallacy for David Hundeyin to say that a Court in a particular jurisdiction does not have jurisdiction over the internet  as that argument would not avail him.

He noted “In addressing the question of jurisdiction concerning defamatory publications disseminated via the internet, it is settled law that courts in any jurisdiction may assume competence to adjudicate on such matters where specific conditions are met.

“The jurisprudence on this issue demonstrates that a claimant may successfully invoke the jurisdiction of a court if the following elements are established:

1. Reputation within the Jurisdiction: The claimant must show that they possess a reputation within the jurisdiction that warrants legal protection. For instance, this may be demonstrated in Lagos, the United Kingdom, or Onitsha, depending on the location of the court.

2. Defamatory Nature of the Publication: The publication in question must be shown to be defamatory in nature, capable of lowering the reputation of the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

3. Accessibility of the Publication within the Jurisdiction: It must be proven that the defamatory publication was accessed or viewed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This establishes the nexus between the harm suffered and the court’s geographical authority.

These elements he says makes the argument proffered by the Defendant in this case —that a court lacks jurisdiction over the internet ‘legally unsustainable.’

“Courts have consistently held that the global nature of the internet does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction where a defamatory act is accessible and has caused reputational harm within the court’s territorial boundaries.

“Accordingly, any contention suggesting that jurisdiction is constrained by the medium of publication rather than the effects of the defamatory act is fallacious and devoid of merit. Such an argument is unlikely to find favour with any court properly apprised of the relevant legal principles.”  Mr. Akinlabi concluded.

Subscribe to Notifications