The High Court of Imo State has dismissed a $25 million fundamental-rights action brought against Meta Platforms Inc. over alleged violations of privacy and data-protection rights.
Justice L.C. Alinnor of the Mbaitoli/Ikeduru Judicial Division held that the applicant, Chika B. Chukwuemeka, failed to establish that Meta had infringed her constitutional right to privacy or unlawfully processed her personal data. The judgment was delivered on July 21, 2026 and became publicly available this week.
Chukwuemeka had alleged that Meta collected, processed, profiled and used her personal information for behavioural advertising without her consent.
She relied on Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution and provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, arguing that the alleged processing violated both her constitutional privacy rights and Nigeria’s data-protection framework.
The applicant sought declarations that the alleged processing was unlawful, injunctions restraining Meta from continuing the processing, orders compelling compliance with Nigerian data-protection law, and a total of $25 million in damages, comprising $10 million in general damages and $15 million in exemplary damages.
Meta denied the allegations.
The company argued that the applicant had not provided evidence establishing how her individual data had been unlawfully processed or transferred outside Nigeria.
Meta also contended that consent is not the only lawful basis upon which personal data may be processed under the Nigeria Data Protection Act.
Earlier NDPC order became central
A major part of Chukwuemeka’s case relied on a previous Final Order issued by the Nigeria Data Protection Commission against Meta.
That order had earlier accused Meta of privacy and data-protection breaches affecting Nigerian users and imposed regulatory sanctions.
However, Meta subsequently challenged the NDPC action before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The dispute was resolved by settlement, and the court adopted terms under which the NDPC Final Orders relied upon by Chukwuemeka were set aside.
Justice Alinnor held that once the regulatory order had been set aside, it could no longer serve as the principal evidential foundation for the applicant’s individual claim.
The court therefore examined whether Chukwuemeka had produced other sufficient evidence showing that Meta specifically infringed her privacy rights.
It found that she had not.
Court rejects Meta’s jurisdiction objections
Significantly, Meta did not succeed on every issue.
The company had challenged the jurisdiction of the Imo State High Court, questioned the mode of service and argued that aspects of the dispute should not have been brought under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure.
Justice Alinnor rejected those objections.
The court held that internet-based activity could, in appropriate circumstances, give rise to jurisdiction where the complained-of activity was accessed within the state.
It also recognised that personal information may fall within the protection offered by the constitutional right to privacy under Section 37.
The claim nevertheless failed because the applicant did not prove the alleged infringement on the available evidence.
The judgment is therefore significant beyond the immediate dismissal of the $25 million claim.
It reinforces two principles developing in Nigeria’s digital-rights jurisprudence: personal data may enjoy constitutional privacy protection, but a claimant must still establish, with evidence linked to his or her own circumstances, how the defendant unlawfully processed that data.
Related Stories
READ MORE: The Expanding Frontiers of Digital Privacy Rights in Nigeria
READ MORE: Cybercrimes Act Under Fresh Scrutiny Over Arrests, Journalism and Free Speech
Source: Premium Times
