An Abuja Chief Magistrate court has struck out a suit seeking to stop Folio Communications Plc from publishing Daily Times of Nigeria.
In the latest ruling by R. J Egbe of Magistrate Court 13 Wuse Zone 2 , the presiding magistrate said while he was aware of an ownership dispute existing between Folio Communications Plc and Sen. Ikechukwu Obiora on Daily Times of Nigeria, he cannot give an order stopping the publication of the newspaper in view of the Consent Judgement entered between the warring parties following resolution of the matter by stakeholders in 2006 and the judgement was yet to be vacated by any court of competent jurisdiction.
“However, I cannot feign ignorance or pretend that there is more to it. The totality of the evidence before me by way of affidavit evidence and exhibits particularly, exhibit 6, seems to me that there is an ownership dispute of the plaintiff between the defendants and the deponent to the counter- affidavit. The tort of passing – off can only be derived from the right of ownership.
Advertisement
Therefore, it is my view that it will be meaningless to deal with the right of passing off without the right of ownership. It will amount to placing something on nothing and a sheer waste of time and energy which this Court is not ready to embark on. The case is therefore struck out.” The magistrate ruled.
Earlier, the magistrate had also thrown out counter affidavit tendered by plaintiffs following argument by counsel to the Anosikes’ that having heard addresses by both side, he should not have allowed the tendering of more documents and affidavits.
The defendants through their Counsel filed a Notice of Preliminary objection dated and filed on the 22nd of February, 2018 against the suit of the plaintiff on eight (8) grounds as in the face of the preliminary objection. The preliminary objection is brought pursuant to section 251(1)(e) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
In support of the notice of preliminary objection is 28 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Israel Dinne including Financial Bid Opening for Daily Times of Nigeria Plc which contains four Official Receipts of Bureau of Public Enterprises; Share Sales/Purchase Agreement between Bureau of Public Enterprises and Folio Communication Ltd for the purchase of 233,745,640 Ordinary Shares of Fifty Kobo each in the issued and Paid up Capital of the Daily Times of Nigeria PLC dated the 21/6/2004; Letter of Divestment of interest in DSV Ltd dated 2005; Settlement Agreement between Folio Communications Ltd and Chief Anthony Idigbe ,SAN and the Daily Times of Nigeria PLC and DSV Ltd and Hallmark Bank PLC and Bureau of Public Enterprises and Nigeria Stock Exchange and Nduka Obaigbena in addition to exhibit 6 which is a consent Judgment of the Federal High Court Lagos delivered on the 24/4/2006.
Also filed with the Notice of preliminary objection was a written address which the defendants’ Counsel adopted along with the notice on the 13/4/18 where the defendants Counsel formulated a lone issue for determination by this court, to wit: Whether the Magistrate Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
In arguing his issue, the defendants’ counsel submitted that the Court lacks the jurisdiction as section 251(1)(e) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria reserves it for Federal High Court. He argued that jurisdiction is the foundation upon which a Court of law is vested with authority to adjudicate on matters and referred the Court to a plethora of cases, including Madukolu V Nkemdilim (1962 )1 All NLR 587.
On the other hand, Counsel to Ikechukwu Obiorah argued that it is the claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court and neither the defendant’ statement of defence nor the defendant’s misrepresentation of the plaintiff’s case and referred the Court to the cases of Aremo V. Adekanye (2004) 13 NWLR (pt. 8910)572 and Abubakar v. Usman (2009) 6 NWLR (pt. 1136)68 amongst others.
He submitted that the court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit as same is found on the tort of passing – off under section 13 (a) of the District Court Act. The plaintiff counsel urged the court to have recourse only to the plaintiff’s pleas and dismiss the preliminary objection.
But in his ruling the magistrate said that there was something curious about the presentation and claims of the plaintiff which he noted was rather self-contradictory.