➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Rasine Brown Ubom v. Globacom Nigeria Limited (SC.840/2015, 12th July 2024)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Jurisdiction;
Copyright;
Glo.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
The appellant’s claim at the trial court is that she is a budding musician and that in 2010, the respondent advertised in Nigeria its Glo Naija Sings Competition with Calabar as one of its zonal auditioning centers with other zonal centers. Other Zonal centers were Abuja, Lagos, Port Harcourt, Enugu and Ibadan and the best three emerged from each zone and the appellant was among the best three from Calabar Zone.
The appellant also avers that the three competitors that emerged from the zones were brought to Lagos out of which the best 10 (ten) called “Top Ten” emerged and she was one of them and tagged as number 9.
The appellant also avers that the competition amongst the said Top Ten commenced and was presented every Sunday and beamed live to the world on DSTV (MNET, AFRICAN MAGIC, MAGICWORLD) and Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), and thereafter voting by the world was done through the internet, Glo Naija sings website, Facebook and Glo phone lines and the competitor with the least votes was evicted at the commencement of the following Sunday’s broadcast and this procedure went on until the top three emerged of which the appellant was one of them.
The appellant also claims that on the 3rd of December, 2010she was declared the second in the competition while one Cassey was declared the winner and a cheque for the sum of $100,000.00(about N15,000,000.00 then) was presented to him as well as an SUV RAV 4 vehicle and the said winner was declared the Glo Ambassador with a deal worth N20,000,000.00.
The appellant avers that she did not receive a dime from the respondent and she took her lot in her stride and went away peacefully but was shocked to discover that the respondent without her consent, illegally used her photographs all over the country promoting the 2011 competition and so she instructed her lawyer to demand damages from the respondent who failed to comply hence the filing of the suit at the trial court.
The respondent denied liability for the reliefs claimed.
On its part, the respondent instead of entering its defence filed a motion on notice dated the 12th day of June, 2012 praying the court to strike out the case for want of jurisdiction on the following grounds:
1.The claim of the claimant as endorsed on the amended writ of summons and statement of claim are matters of copyright within the meaning of copyrights Act and Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
2.By the combined provisions of section 251(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999as amended and section 16(1) and 51 of the Copyrights Act Cap C28, it is the Federal High Court and not the High Court of Rivers State that has jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to copyrights.
In response to the said application, the appellant filed a counter affidavit and written address on the 19th day of June, 2012 to which the respondent filed a reply on points of law on the 20th day of June,2012. After considering the address of the parties, the trial court gave its considered ruling on the 7th day of July, 2012 striking out the appellant’s case on the ground that it involves the infringement of her copyright which was triable at the Federal High Court and not at the State High Court.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal vide a notice of appeal filed on the 26th day of March, 2014. After a consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, the Court of Appeal in its judgment held that in the absence of clear pleadings of an agreement between the appellant and the respondent that constituted a contract in law upon which her claims could be premised, the High Court was right when it held that the appellant’s claims in this case would appear to and could be within the purview of the provisions of the Copyright Act for the infringement of her right either as a singer or performer, or both, who participated in the singing/performing of a competition organized by the respondent. The court below then dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.
Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below, the appellant has appealed to this court vide her notice of appeal filed on the 2nd day of September, 2015.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal Right when they held that the High Court of Rivers State has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL ALLOWED]
↪️ ISSUE 1: IN APPELLANT’S FAVOUR.
[THERE IS A SIMPLE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENT
‘Looking at the claim of the appellant before the trial court especially at paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 thereof, the appellant made reference to contractual documents (which only the respondent has possession of), signed by her, her father and elder brother (her then guardians) and the appellant further gave notice to the respondent to produce same. The appellant also stated that there was no authorization from her or her guardians for the respondent to use her pictures for advertisements across Nigeria or outside Nigeria and that she became surprised that her pictures were being used as advert by the respondent without any such permission or authorization. It is deducible from the foregoing that the appellant’s claim is one based on a breach of simple contract between the appellant and the respondent. The law is quite settled that where parties have voluntarily entered into an agreement, they are bound by the terms thereof as the main purport of any legal agreement is to set out clearly what the parties agreed upon. See Okechukwu v.Onuorah (2000) LPELR – 2431 (SC); (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691)597. Having resolved that the claim of the appellant is one founded on simple contract, it is the duty of the trial court to consider the said agreement and to determine whether there is a breach or not.’
THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE
‘In the instant case, there are sufficient reasons for interference by this court based on the resolution of the sole issue submitted by the respondent for determination of this appeal. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal’s findings were not supported by the pleadings on record. In the light of the foregoing, I am of the very firm opinion that the concurrent decisions of both High Court of Rivers State and the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal should be disturbed as the said decisions were given in error and if same error is continued by this court, it would constitute a miscarriage of justice against the appellant.’
⦿ USE OF APPELLANT’S PHOTOGRAPH WITHOUT HER CONSENT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE COPYRIGHT ACT
‘In my humble view, a photograph taken of the appellant by the respondent does not amount to “performance” or “performing” as defined in subsection 1 and 2(b) of section 26 (supra). In the circumstances of this case, the use of the appellant’s photograph without her consent does not fall within the purview of the Copyright Act and therefore does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. The trial High Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Whether or not there is an existing contract, which has been breached, is a matter to be determined at the appropriate court.’
‘The lower courts in coming to their conclusion that the appellant did not aver in her pleadings that she entered into a specific contract with the respondent in respect of her entry or participation in the competition, deliberately ignored paragraphs 14, 15, 16, and 17of the appellant’s amended statement of claim. In the paragraphs, the appellant referred to contractual documents (which only the respondent has possession of); signed by her, her father, and elder brother (her then guardians). The appellant further gave notice to the respondent to produce the said contractual documents.
It is my view that the failure of the lower courts to take into cognizance the pleadings of the appellant that she and her then guardians signed contractual documents with the respondent, before hastily concluding that the case falls within the purview of the Copyright Act, amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice. This court is therefore compelled to upturn the concurrent findings of the lower courts in the interest of justice. The facts and the circumstances of this case are part of the rare instances in which this court will overturn the concurrent “findings of the lower courts.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘I hold that this appeal has merit and same is therefore hereby allowed. I hold that the State High Court before which the matter was filed has the jurisdiction to hear the matter and not the Federal High Court, as the matter is not one predicated on Copyright but Contract. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/385/2014 delivered on the 5th day of June, 2015 is therefore hereby set aside.
It is hereby ordered that the matter be transferred to the Rivers State High Court for expeditious trial on the merits.
The appellant is entitled to costs against the respondent assessed at N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) only.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿ WHO CAN INSTITUTE AN ACTION IN COPYRIGHT
Both the trial court and the court below agree that the appellant’s claim is one that falls within the purview of a claim founded on copyright. The law has stated who can institute an action in copyright. Section 37(1) of the Copyright Act 2022 has stated the category of persons that can institute an action in copyright include: the owner, assignee or an exclusive licensee of the copyright. — Idris JSC.
⦿ A CLAIM FOUNDED ON COPYRIGHT MUST HAVE THESE PARTICULARS PLEADED
Also, a claim founded on copyright must contain certain particulars of claim which must be pleaded before the trial court. These particulars of claim include: “(a) the title of the claimant to sue, i.e. as owner or exclusive licensee; the subsistence of copyright in the work, which(b)must be identified with precision; (c) the infringement by the defendant; and (d) the relief claimed.” The particulars of claim must be verified by a statement of truth. Relevant documents (for example, the copyright work and any written agreement relied upon) should be attached to the particulars of claim.“ See Bullen & Leake on Pleadings, 16th edition at page 292, 75- 08. — Idris JSC.
⦿ PLEADINGS OF PARTIES HAS TO BE READ AS A WHOLE
The court has a duty to ensure that the pleadings of a party are read as a whole and not in isolated patches so as to be clear on the case presented by the party. See the cases of Alliance Int’l Ltd v. S.K. Int’l Ltd. (2022)14 NWLR (Pt. 1851) 471 and Agi v. PDP & ors (2016) LPELR -42578 (SC) (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386. In Okochi & ors v. Animkwoi & ors (2003) LPELR – 2455(SC), (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 1 this court per Tobi, JSC held:
“In dealing with pleadings, a court must read all the paragraphs together to get a flowing story of the parties and not a few paragraphs in isolation. It is the totality of the pleadings, whether it is the statement of claim or the statement of defence, that state the case of the party ….” — Idris JSC.
⦿ WHERE WORDS USED ARE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS
The settled position of the law with regard to the interpretation of statutes is that where the words used are plain, clear and unambiguous, they must be given their literal meaning unless to-do so would lead to absurdity. See: Abegunde v. Ondo State Houseof Assembly & ors. (2015) 4 – 5 SC (Pt. 1) 1; (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 314 (2015) LPELR – 24588 (SC) @ 41, C – E; Ogbuayinya v. Okuda (1976) 6 – 9 SC 32; P.D.P. v. INEC & Ors. (2014) LPELR- 23808 (SC) @ 34 – 35, E – A.; (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525. — Kekere-Ekun JSC.
⦿ SITUATIONS WHEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACTS
The Supreme Court will generally not interfere with the concurrent findings of a trial court and the Court of Appeal on issues of fact. The two courts are presumed to have considered all the facts necessary for their coming to such findings. The Supreme Court will only disturb or upturn a concurrent-finding of fact of the two lower courts in exceptional circumstances like: Where the violation of some principles of law or procedure exists, and such erroneous proposition (1) cannot stand if not corrected, Patently erroneous findings of fact which amount to a (2) travesty of justice if not left uncorrected. (3) Where the findings of fact are erroneous or perverse.
See Kopek Construction Ltd v. Ekisola (2010) LPELR-1703(SC);(2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 618; Okewu v. FRN (2012) LPELR-7834(SC); (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1305) 327; Kure v. COP (2020);LPELR-49378(SC); (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1729) 296; Ayorinde v.Kuforiji (2022) LPELR-56600(SC); (2022) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1843)43.
In Ogologo & ors v. Uche & Ors (2005) LPELR-2312(SC)(Pp. 26 – 26, paras. D – G); (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 226 his lordship Sunday Akinola Akintan, JSC while determining the instances where the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts; held thus: “The position of the law is that ordinarily, this court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the two lower courts. But where it is manifest that those concurrent findings are based on a wrong perspective or wrong principles of law or are not supported by the evidence led at the trial, or it is clearly shown that the findings are glaringly wrong and will perverse the course of justice, then this court has the duty to tamper with such findings of fact and put right the situation. See Balogun v. Agboola (1974) 10 SC111; Lokoyi v. Olojo (1983) 2 SCNLR 127; Chinwenduv. Mbamali (1980) 3-4 Be 31; Ibhafidon v. Igbinosun (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 716) 653 at 660; Dibiamaka v.Osakwe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 107·), 101; and Odonigiv. Oyeleke (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 708) 12 at 32.”
Similarly, in Oloja &. ors v. Gov. Benue State & ors (2021) LPELR.S5634(SC) (Pp 32 – 33, paras. B – A) his LordshipMohammed Lawal Garba, JSC also stated that: “In addition, I would like to state that the appeal being one against the concurrent findings by the two lower courts, the appellants owe the duty and burden to show satisfactorily that any of the established reasons to warrant and justify interference with the findings by this court, exists. Situations in which the court may interfere with the concurrent judgments of the lower courts include: –
(a)Where the findings are perverse, Where the findings are unreasonable and(b)against the evidence adduced, Where the findings are in violation of some(c)principles of law and procedure, When the findings occasion a miscarriage of justice. See Lokoyi v. Olojo (1983) 8 SC, 61 at 68;(1983) 2 SCNLR 127; Bankole v. Pelu (1991) 8NWLR (Pt. 211) 23, Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 14NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137, Bayol v. Ahemba (1999)10 NWLR (Pt. 623) 381, Cameroon Airlines v.(d)Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512.”
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Idris, J.S.C.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
K. O. Uzoukwu, Esq.
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
O. Okodiya, Esq.
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)