A Federal High Court in Lagos has thrown out a N1 billion claim brought against MTN Nigeria Communications Plc by Walls and Gates Ltd and Okechukwu Udeichi, managing director of the firm, over allegations linked to the telecom company’s 20th anniversary campaign.
Justice Ayokunle Faji ruled on Tuesday that the claimants failed to prove any enforceable proprietary right in their proposal known as “20 for 20”.
The court held that the action lacked substance and was speculative, vexatious and devoid of merit.
Following the decision, the court dismissed the suit in full and ordered the claimants to pay N3 million as costs to MTN.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/1935/2021, was filed by Walls and Gates Ltd and Udeichi who alleged that MTN made unlawful use of a proposal they said was submitted to the company on 17 September 2019.
They contended that MTN’s anniversary promotion, which involved the distribution of 20 sport utility vehicles to subscribers, was derived from their “20 for 20” concept.
Based on this claim, the plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement, breach of confidentiality and trademark violation.
They asked the court to award N1 billion in damages or, in the alternative, compel MTN to account for revenue from the promotion and remit 50 per cent to them.
MTN Nigeria Communications Plc denied all allegations, arguing that the document was an unsolicited business proposal that created no legal or confidential obligation.
The telecoms company maintained that its anniversary programme was independently conceived and that the proposal amounted to a general idea not protected under Nigerian copyright law.
MTN further submitted that the plaintiffs had no valid trademark registration and failed to establish access to, or copying of, any protected work.
In resolving the dispute, Faji noted that the plaintiffs admitted during oral argument that their trademark infringement claim was not proven.
The court therefore confined its determination to the issues of alleged breach of confidentiality and copyright infringement.
On confidentiality, the judge held that no confidential relationship existed between the parties.
He observed that the proposal had been submitted to the Nigerian Copyright Commission and used in support of a trademark application before it was sent to MTN, thereby placing it in the public domain.
The court also noted that the plaintiffs admitted distributing the proposal to other organisations after contacting MTN, which extinguished any claim of confidentiality.
The judge held that MTN had no duty to respond to an unsolicited proposal in the absence of a contractual, fiduciary or non-disclosure arrangement.
On the copyright claim, the court ruled that registration with the Nigerian Copyright Commission does not itself confer copyright protection.
The judge stressed that Nigerian copyright law protects expressions and not mere ideas or business concepts.
He found that the “20 for 20 Millennium Promotion” amounted only to a general idea of rewarding customers during an anniversary celebration.
According to the court, the proposal lacked the originality and intellectual effort required to attract copyright protection.
Faji further held that MTN’s use of the phrase “MTN 20th Anniversary” was a descriptive reference to an anniversary event and not derived from any protectable work of the plaintiffs.
The court relied on evidence showing that similar anniversary reward programmes had been implemented by MTN affiliates in other countries before the plaintiffs’ proposal emerged.
In strong terms, the judge described the suit as a “gold-digging exercise” intended to impose a commercial relationship on MTN.
He criticised the plaintiffs for using MTN’s trademark in their proposal without authorisation and then relying on the same document to pursue a billion-naira claim.
While affirming the right of citizens to approach the courts, the judge warned that such access must be reserved for actions with prima facie merit.
Faji consequently awarded N3 million in costs to MTN, holding that costs must follow the event.
The court accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety and directed the plaintiffs to pay the awarded costs to the defendant.