Nokia West Africa (Nigeria) Limited V. MR. Williams Orioha (A.k.a. 2shotz) (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling of HON. JUSTICE O. E. ABANG sitting at the Federal High Court, Lagos delivered on the 15th November, 2013 wherein the preliminary objection brought by the Appellant challenging the claim of the Respondent for non – disclosure of a cause of action was dismissed. The Appellant dissatisfied with the ruling filed a Notice of appeal dated 29th November, 2013 filed on the same date which was amended with leave of Court on the 11/5/2015 setting out 6 grounds of appeal.

The brief facts are that the Appellant filed a preliminary objection before the Lower Court challenging the Respondent’s statement of claim on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action by not particularizing the acts of the Appellant that constituted an infringement of the Respondent’s copy right. The trial Court took the preliminary objection and dismissed it thus this appeal.

Appellant filed its brief of arguments dated 7/5/15 filed on the same day but deemed on the 11/5/15. The Respondent’s brief of arguments dated 4/2/14 was filed on the 28/2/14 and

deemed on the 11/5/15. Briefs were adopted at the hearing of the appeal. The Appellant distilled 6 issues for determination as follows:

A. Whether the Lower Court could have considered Section 6 and 15 of the Copyright Act and other applicable laws and authorities in determining whether a reasonable cause of action for infringement of Copyright had fun disclosed in the statement of claim and determined the preliminary Objection without the requirement for trial.

B. Whether the Respondent could have disclosed a reasonable cause of action for infringement of copyright against the Appellant without pleading materials facts?relating to every element of his alleged cause of action.

C. Whether the allegations in the statement of claim were pleaded with sufficient “particularity” or detail to amount to disclosure of a reasonable cause of action for infringement of copyright against the Appellant

D. Whether it is an element of infringement of copyright that the allegedly infringing article should have allegedly been made in Nigeria or allegedly been imported into Nigeria by the defendant.

E. Whether on construction of the statement of claim, the

respondent failed to plead material facts showing all the elements of an infringement of copyright by the Appellant.

F. Whether having an exclusive right to manufacture or distribute is not entirely different from actually manufacturing or distributing.

The Respondent on his part adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant though grudgingly. I have read the briefs and this appeal being an interlocutory appeal must be cautiously considered to avoid determining issues that are for substantive trial. The issues formulated by the Appellant presents a strong temptation to address them but I shall resist the temptation and deal with the aspect that relates to pretrial. It is therefore expedient to reframe the issues and limit it to the pretrial issue in order to avoid determining the matter at this stage. The relevant question is simply –

“Whether the Respondent has disclosed a cause of action in his statement of claim.’