CORAM
PARTIES
MARRIOT HOTELS LIMITEDMARILYN OKONKWOADAOBI EZE APPELLANTS
MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL, INC.MARRIOT WORLDWIDE CORPORATIONREGISTRAR-GENERAL, CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION, ABUJA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st and 2nd Respondent as Plaintiffs at the Federal High Court claimed exclusive ownership of the name “MARRIOT” styled by the “M” which was registered with the Company in the United State of America several years ago and that they have opened and operated several businesses all over the world using similar name and logo. Furthermore they claimed that the Defendants/Appellants infringed on the name and logo hence this action against the Defendants/Appellants wherein the Plaintiffs/Respondents sought for a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st– 3rd Defendants from passing off or attempting to pass off the business of the Defendants as that of the Plaintiffs by the use of the business name and style containing the word “Marriott” with or without the stylized “M” logo amongst other reliefs. At the conclusion of trial, the court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants. Being aggrieved by the decision of the court, the Defendants/Appellants have appealed to this court. Upon service of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument on the 1st and 2nd Respondents, they filed a Notice of Preliminary objection on grounds that Ground 2 of the amended Notice of Appeal dated 27th November 2006 is fundamentally defective and runs foul of the Rules of this court also that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the said ground.
HELD
Appeal Partly Succeeds
ISSUES
? Whether the Federal High Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the claims of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.? Whether the lower court was right when it ordered the 3d Respondent to de-register the name of the 1st Appellant.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
“Preliminary objection goes to the root of the appeal it is a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the appeal, and must therefore be heard and determined first before the appeal is heard. See Saleh V. Monguno [2003] 1 NWLR (PT. 89) 221. Again Preliminary objection has the effect of destroying the appeal if it eventually succeeds especially when it is targeted at the entire grounds of appeal, the aim is usually to prevent the Court from hearing and determining the issues distilled from the grounds of appeal challenged, whether the objection is aimed at attacking the entire grounds of appeal or not, the settled position of the law is that the objection must first be heard and determined before any further action is taken on the substantive appeal See: Chief U.M. Efet Vs. INEC & Others (2011) 3 SCM 63 at 761, Yaro Vs. Arena Construction Ltd, & Others, 6 SCNJ 418, Oni & Others Vs. Fayemi & Others,(2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1369) 421, Akeredolu Vs. Mimiko & Others (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 402 at 432, and Rochas Vs. PDP & Others (2014) 1 SCM 163 at 785.” PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A
TECHNICALITIES – LEGAL ISSUES MUST NOT BE SACRIFICED ON THE ALTAR OF TECHNICALITIES
“Substance of legal issues must not be sacrificed to the altar of unwarranted technicalities.” PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap. C20 LFN 2004Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended by Decree 107 of 1993Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)Federal High Court (Amendment) Decrees No. 60 of 1991.Federal High Court Act 1973Trade Marks Act