Understanding How To Prosecute A Copyright Infringement Claim In Nigeria: A Review Of The Supreme Court's Judgment In Ubom V. Globacom (Nig.) Ltd. (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985) 157

Introduction

Copyright infringement is the unauthorised use of a copyrighted work without the authorisation of the copyright holder. Such unauthorised use includes: reproduction and distribution of the said work. A breach of contract, on the other hand, occurs when a party breaches the terms of the contract, and the other party decides to sue for the breach.

In the case of Ubom v. Globacom (Nig) Ltd (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985) 157, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to make a pronouncement on the difference between prosecuting a copyright infringement claim and prosecuting a case for a breach of contract, especially where the issue in contention involves the unlawful use of a party's image or photograph. The Supreme Court emphasised that a claimant who intends to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement must file a particulars of claim containing the following information:

1. The title of the claimant to sue, i.e. as owner or exclusive licensee;
2. The subsistence of copyright in the work, which must be identified with precision;
3. The infringement by the defendant; and
4. The relief claimed.

On the other hand, when suing for breach of contract, a claimant must establish that a valid contract existed, that the claimant performed their obligations under the contract, that the defendant failed to perform their obligations under the contract, and that the breach caused the claimant losses or inconvenience.

Facts of Ubom -v- Globacom

The Appellant was a budding musician who participated in the Respondent's Glo Naija Sings competition sometime in 2010, and she emerged as the second-place winner. Although the winner of the competition received a cash prize of $100,000.00 and a vehicle from the Respondent, she did not receive any prize or monetary reward for coming in second place. Instructively, before she enrolled for the Respondent's competition, she and some of her relatives signed some agreements, which the Respondent gave to her. Although she and her relatives signed the agreements, the Respondent did not provide them with a copy for their records.

Several months later, the Appellant discovered that the Respondent was using her photographs on its billboards across the country to promote the 2011 edition of the competition and its products without her consent. She instructed her solicitors to write a letter to the Respondent, but they ignored her letter. Therefore, the Appellant filed a lawsuit against the Respondent at the High Court of Rivers State for the illegal use of her photographs for advertising and economic benefits. She also demanded compensation of N500,000,000.00 (Five hundred million naira) from the Respondent and an order of the Court restraining the Respondent from further usage of her photographs without her consent.

Instead of filing its defence to the Appellant's claims, the Respondent filed a Motion on Notice asking the Court to strike out the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction because the Appellant's case was a copyright claim under the Copyright Act and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Respondent further contended that, based on the provisions of sections 251 (1) (f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 16 (1) and 51 of the Copyrights Act, it is the Federal Court and not the High Court of Rivers State that had the jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to copyrights.

The High Court of Rivers State agreed with the Respondent's arguments, and it struck out the lawsuit for want of jurisdiction. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the High Court's judgment, and she appealed to the Court of Appeal, which also dismissed her appeal and upheld the judgment of the High Court of Rivers State. The Appellant was still dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's judgment, and she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Summary of the Supreme Court's Judgment

The Supreme Court held that both the High Court of Rivers State and the Court of Appeal were wrong to have held that the Appellant's case was a copyright claim because a thorough and holistic review of the Appellant's Statement of Claim at the High Court will show clearly that she premised her claims on a breach of the contract, which she signed with the Respondent and not based on a copyright claim. The Supreme Court went further to hold that the case could not be regarded as a copyright claim because the Appellant doesn't fall under any of the three categories of a Claimant in a copyright claim as provided in section 37 (1) of the Copyright Act. For the sake of clarity, section 37 (1) of the Copyright Act identifies the category of persons that can institute an action in copyright to include the following:

1. The owner,
2. Assignee or
3. An exclusive licensee of the copyright.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasised that a claimant who intends to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement must file a particulars of claim containing the following information:

1. The title of the claimant to sue, i.e. as owner or exclusive licensee;
2. The subsistence of copyright in the work, which must be identified with precision;
3. The infringement by the defendant; and
4. The relief claimed.

Therefore, since the Appellant did not identify herself in any of the categories stated in section 37 of the Copyright Act, the Supreme Court held that her claim was not a copyright claim. Instead, the Supreme Court held that her claim was based on a breach of contract and upheld her appeal, sending the case back to the High Court of Rivers State for trial.

It is instructive to also note that the Supreme Court observed that the Appellant did not establish that her photograph was eligible for copyright protection because she did not plead that she expended any effort on making the photograph to give it an original character in compliance with the provisions of section 2(2) of the Copyright Act, 2022. Honourable Justice Idris, JSC, at Page 192 Para D of the Law Report held as follows:

"A cursory look at the pleading of the appellant reproduced hereinabove, that is the amended statement of claim, shows that there is no averment before the trial court wherein the appellant described herself as the owner, assignee or an exclusive licensee of the copyright of the photograph complained about. There are also no averments that can constitute particulars of claim in a suit for copyright as enumerated above found in the amended statement of claim. In addition, there is nowhere in the amended statement of claim where the appellant even by implication admitted that she is entitled to copyright protection or that sufficient effort has been expended in making the work (photograph of the appellant) to give it an original character to make same eligible for copyright."

Honourable Justice Idris, JSC at Page 193 Para B-E, further held as follows:

"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 her 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 authorisation from her or her guardians for the respondent to use her pictures for advertisement 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 authorisation. It is deducible from the foregoing that appellant's claim is one based on a breach of a 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 be set out clearly what the parties agreed upon."

Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court's Judgment

The following are the key takeaways deducible from the Supreme Court's judgment:

1. While the same set of facts can give rise to a copyright claim or a breach of contract claim, the Claimant needs to ensure their pleadings are drafted in a manner which shows the exact strategy they intend to pursue their claim.

2. If the Claimant elects to pursue a breach of contract claim, they must ensure that they make copious references to the contract they executed with the other party, establish the provisions that the other party breached, establish how the Claimant complied with the contract, and file their case at the High Court of the State where they intend to pursue their claim.

3. For a claim of copyright infringement to succeed, the claimant's pleadings must establish their title to sue, i.e. as owner or exclusive licensee, the existence of a subsistence of copyright in the work, the infringement by the defendant, and the relief sought. The lawsuit must also be filed at the Federal High Court.

4. Before filing a copyright claim, the Claimant must ensure that the work to be protected qualifies as "Artistic Work" under section 108 of the Copyright Act, 2022 and that the Claimant has expended some efforts on making the work to give it an original character in accordance with the provisions of section 2(2) of the Copyright Act 2022.

Conclusion

This decision explains the conditions precedent for filing a copyright claim under the Copyright Act 2022, and it also reinforces the position that a claim for the unlawful use of a Claimant's photograph can be properly brought as a breach of contract claim at the High Court of a State.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.