Justice Ayokunle Olayinka Faji of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has dismissed a N1 billion lawsuit against MTN Nigeria Communications Plc, filed by Walls and Gates Ltd and its Managing Director, Mr. Okechukwu Udeichi. The suit accused MTN of copyright infringement, breach of confidentiality, and trademark violations related to the company’s 20th Anniversary promotional campaign.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any legally protectable rights in their “20 for 20” proposal, describing the lawsuit as frivolous, speculative, and vexatious. Consequently, the case was dismissed entirely, with Justice Faji awarding N3 million in costs against the plaintiffs.
In Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1935/2021, the plaintiffs alleged that MTN’s 20th anniversary promotion, which awarded 20 Sport Utility Vehicles to subscribers, was derived from their September 17, 2019 proposal. They sought N1 billion in damages or, alternatively, an order for MTN to remit 50% of revenue generated from the promotion.
MTN denied the allegations, asserting that the proposal was unsolicited and created no contractual or confidential obligation. The company maintained that the anniversary campaign was independently developed and that the plaintiffs’ document was a general business concept, which Nigerian copyright law does not protect.
Justice Faji noted that the plaintiffs had already admitted their trademark infringement claim was unproven. On the breach of confidentiality claim, the court found no confidential relationship existed, pointing out that the plaintiffs had previously submitted the proposal to the Nigerian Copyright Commission and circulated it to other organizations, effectively placing it in the public domain.
Regarding copyright infringement, the judge held that Nigerian law protects expressions, not ideas or business concepts. The “20 for 20 Millennium Promotion” was deemed a bare business idea lacking originality or intellectual effort. MTN’s use of the phrase “MTN 20th Anniversary” was recognized as a natural description, not a copy of the plaintiffs’ work. Evidence also showed similar anniversary reward programs had been implemented by MTN affiliates elsewhere prior to the plaintiffs’ proposal.
Justice Faji described the lawsuit as a “gold-digging exercise” and criticized the plaintiffs for attempting to leverage MTN’s trademark to support their billion-naira claim. He stressed that while citizens are encouraged to access the courts, suits must have at least prima facie merit.
The court’s final decision dismissed the suit in its entirety and ordered the plaintiffs to pay N3 million in costs to MTN.
