HENRY ODEH VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
May 30, 2025HON. ENGR. BAKO SARAI & ANOR V INUSA HARUNA & ORS
May 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008-03) Legalpedia 25070 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Lagos
Mon Mar 31, 2008
Suit Number: CA/L/283/2008
CORAM
U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A
PARTIES
GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC
APPELLANTS
MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA (LTD/GTE)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, JURISDICTION, LAW OF CONTRACT, LAW OF EVIDENCE, LOCUS STANDI, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent commenced this action before the Federal High Court, Lagos Division via a Writ of Summons and a Statement of Claim, wherein the Respondent sought against the Appellant, General and Exemplary damages; injunctive relief; amongst other reliefs. The case of the Respondent was that they are the owners, assignee and exclusive licensee of the right to authorize public performances in Nigeria in respect of the musical works of various authors and composers which included musical works in the repertoire of the Performing Right Society Ltd (PRS) of Copyright House, 29/33 Berners Street, London WIP 4AA and American Society of Composer, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) but to mention a few. That sometime between 1996 and 2005, the Appellant organized a musical show where they played several of the Respondent’s musical works without authorization; this caused several letters to be sent to the Appellant informing them of the infringements but got no reply from the Appellant. Hence, the Respondent commenced this action against the Appellant for breach of copyright in the musical works on the grounds that the Appellant was not granted a license for the use of the said musical works. In response, Appellant entered conditional appearance and filed its Statement of Defence alongside a Preliminary Objection for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the Respondent is not a licensed collecting society and their demand from the Appellant is illegal and contrary to provisions of the Copyright Act. The trial Court in its ruling, raised a fresh issue for determination whether or not the Plaintiff has a locus standi to bring the present action, it held that the Respondent has the requisite Locus Standi, and then dismissed the Appellant’s objection. Dissatisfied by the ruling, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing 3 Grounds of Appeal. Reacting, the Respondent filed a reply brief alongside a Notice of Preliminary Objection praying the Court that the appeal was incompetent on grounds that it is academic and that the Appellant’s ground of appeal being one of mixed law and fact and leave to appeal was neither sought nor obtained.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Respondent/plaintiffs demand for a licence fee from the Appellant/Defendant or the Respondent/Plaintiffs act of suing the Appellant/Defendant for the, latter’s failure to negotiate or be granted a licence of the Respondent is illegal, same being contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Act, in that the Respondent a company limited by guarantee with over 50 members engages in the business of negotiating and licensing of copyright works without the approval of the Nigerian Copyright Commission.
2. Whether the trial Court did err in law when it assumed jurisdiction based on locus standi when the grounds of the preliminary Objection filed, canvassed and argued was on illegality of the Respondent/plaintiffs claim.
3. Whether the Lower Court was right in holding that the Court of Appeal decision in the case of MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIAL VS. ADE OKIN was binding on it when the Court of Appeal’s judgment which was per incuriam, was on the issue of locus standi and not the issue of illegality of the Respondent negotiating and granting licences without the approval of the Copyright Commission which was the basis of the Appellant’s motion before the trial Court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE OF LOCUS STANDI – BASIS ON WHICH LOCUS STANDI WILL BE ACCORDED TO A PLAINTIFF
“The question of “Locus Standi or standing to sue is an aspect of justifiability and as such the problem of Locus standi surrounded by the same complexities and vagaries inherent in Justiciability. The fundamental aspect of Locus Standi is that, it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before the High Court not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated.
Per Mohammed JSC in Ijelu & Ors. v. LSDPC &Ors, LPELR 1464, Karibi-whyte JSC held in Oduneye v. Efunuga (1990) LPELR 2208.
“Accordingly Locus standi will only be accorded to a Plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected.
See Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR Pt.18 page 669.
‘Locus STANDI is the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law.”
-PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT WHEN AN ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS RAISED
“Whenever the jurisdiction of the Court is challenged, the Court must first of all assume jurisdiction to decide whether in clear and unequivocal terms, it has or lacks jurisdiction. AG Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR Pt.111 page 552. The preliminary Objection alleged the question of Locus Standi as a result of illegality of the Respondent’s activities.
Normally the procedural requirement that an issue of jurisdiction should be resolved first does not mean that it must be treated separately. It can be taken along with arguments on the merits of a case. The important thing is that the Court should first express its views on the issue of jurisdiction before considering the merits of the case. The advantage of such proceeding is that in the event of an appeal by any of the parties, it is easy for the Appellate Court to express its views on the decision of the Lower Court as to jurisdiction and the merit of the case, and thereby remove the necessity for two appeals; the one as to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the other as to the merit of the case; see Senate President v. Nzeribe (2004) 9 NWLR Pt.878 page 251”.-PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A
ISSUE OF LOCUS STANDI – WHETHER AN ISSUE OF LOCUS STANDI BORDERS ON JURISDICTION
“As I said earlier in this judgment, the issue of Locus Standi borders on the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on any issue. For an action to be properly constituted so as to vest jurisdiction in the Court to adjudicate on it, there must be a competent Plaintiff and a competent Defendant. See Afaguba & Co. vs. Guka Nig. Ltd. (2005) All FWLR Pt.265 (2005) 2 SCNJ pg.139. -PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A
AFFIDAVIT – NATURE OF AN AFFIDAVIT
“An affidavit is a statement of fact which the maker or deponent swears to be true to the best of his knowledge. It is a Court process in writing, deposing to facts within the knowledge of the deponent. It is documentary evidence which the Court can admit in the absence of any unchallenged evidence. See Akpokiniovo v. Agas (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt.881) pg.394. -PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A
DEFENCE OF ILLEGALITY – MODE OF RAISING THE DEFENCE OF ILLEGALITY
“An action cannot arise from an illegal course. See Pan Bisbilder (Nig) Ltd. v. FBN Ltd. (2002) 1 NWLR Pt.642 page 684.
Where the Appellant/Defendant relied upon the defence of illegality, he should distinctively raise it and State facts or refer to facts already stated in the statement of claim so as to show clearly what the illegality is. If a man intended to challenge illegality, he must state facts for the purpose of showing what the illegality is. Ekwunife v. Wayne (WA) Ltd. 1989 5 NWLR Pt.112 page 371, AIC Ltd. v. NNPC (2005) 11 NWLR Pt.937 page 563, (2005) 5 SC Pt.11 page 60”. -PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A
CASES CITED
Pan Bisbilder (Nig) Ltd. v. FBN Ltd. (2002) 1 NWLR Pt.642 page 684.
Ekwunife v. Wayne (WA) Ltd. 1989 5 NWLR Pt.112 page 371,
AIC Ltd. v. NNPC (2005) 11 NWLR Pt.937 page 563, (2005) 5 SC Pt.11 page 60
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Copyright Act, CAP C28 LFN 2004
Court of Appeal Act
