Professor A.b. Fafunwa V. Bellview Travels Limited (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU J.C.A: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of J.O. Pedro J. of the High Court of Lagos State in Suit No. ID/57/99, in which the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

At the Court below, the Plaintiff, Professor A. B. Fafunwa, now Appellant had on a Writ of Summon and Amended Statement of Claim filed on the 6th of May 2002 claimed the following against the Defendant/ResPondent viz:

1. “A declaration that the Defendant is not entitled to the use of telephone numbers 2615028, or to publish the said number in such manner as would indicate or impress its customers and or the general public that it is entitled to the same.”

2. “A declaration that the publication of the said telephone number 2615028 by the Defendant on its brochure and ticket jackets, or any of its materials is improper and illegal.”

3. “An injunction restraining the Defendant by itself, its servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from continuing to publish the said telephone number on its brochure and ticket jackets or any of its materials, or in any manner whatsoever as to give the impression that it is entitled to the use thereof.”

4. An order directing the Defendant to advertise to its customers and the general public that it is’, not entitled to the use of the said telephone number 2515028 through on advert published in a Newspaper circulating throughout the Federation as well as a Notice to that effect posted to all its offices and places of business.”

5. N517,282.00 as special damages and N5 million as general damages for nuisance occasioned by the Defendant’s improper use of the said telephone number.

At the lower Court, pleadings were filed and exchanged and the case proceeded to trial on the 13th of February 2003.

The Plaintiff (now Appellant) was a Federal Minister of Education of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The number 615028 was given to him by NITEL. Same was digitalized by prefixing the number “2” making it 2615028. He had been paying bills to NITEL on this number.

When he had the analog number, he did not have any problem with it, until when the number became digitalized in 1993. From that time he started receiving calls from the Respondent’s clients and the Respondent incessantly. This affected his blood pressure.

They wrote to NITEL complaining about the incessant calls from the Respondent’s clients. NITEL then gave the Respondent new number which is 615098. The Respondent refused to advertise the new number. Instead they continued to advertise the Plaintiff’s number.

Upon investigation, they discovered that the Respondent continued to use their number in their handbills. The handbills are not dated so that they cannot say whether it was printed when the phone number was given to Bellview, or when a new number was given to them. The Appellants ordeal lasted nine years and has affected his health and that of his family.

The Appellant through a medical doctor had testified how his health was affected by this whole saga.