Authored By: Justina Oluwatimilehin Babade
University of Abuja
CASE TITLE & CITATION
Nigerian Copyright Commission & Ors (NCC) v Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN) LTD/GTE
- Full name of the case: Nigerian Copyright Commission and Others v Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria LTD/GTE
- Media Neutral: [2017] NGCA 1
- Official citation: CA/L/692/12 [2017] NGCA 1
COURT NAME & BENCH
Name of the court: Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Bench type: Coram
Name of the judges
- Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice, Court of Appeal (Lead Judgement)
- Hussein Mukhtar Justice, Court of Appeal
- Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh Justice, Court of Appeal
- Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice, Court of Appeal
DATE OF JUDGMENT
8th June, 2017.
PARTIES INVOLVED
Appellant
- Nigerian Copyright Commission
- Director General, Nigerian Copyright Commission
- Mr. Amodu Alewu Augustine (Assistant Director NCC)
- Mr. Henry Njoku
- Inspector General of Police
Respondent
- Musical Copyright Society Of Nigeria Ltd/Gte
- Mr. Mayo Ayilaran
- Mr. Orits Wiliki
- Mr. Louis Bassey Udoh
- Mr. Halim Mohammed
And
- Eco Bank Of Nigeria Plc
- UBA Plc
- Zenith Plc
- GTBank Plc
- Access Bank Plc
- Keystone Bank Plc
- Equitorial Trust Bank Plc
- First Bank of Nigeria Plc
- Union Bank of Nigeria Plc
- Skye Bank Plc
- Diamond Bank
- Enterprise Bank Plc
- Fidelity Bank Plc
- Sterling Bank Plc
- First City Monument Bank Plc
- Main Street Bank Plc
- Standard Chartered Bank Ltd
- WEMA Bank Plc
- Stanbic IBTC Plc
FACTS OF THE CASE
Concise summary of the background and relevant facts
The first to fifth respondents (Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria-MSCN) had initially sued the appellants (Nigerian Copyright Commission -NCC) for the unlawful unwarranted threats of detention, harassment and intimidation which was construed as a breach of their fundamental human rights. That the arrest and detention of the respondents would only be justified if it is for the purposes of taking them to court, completing investigation within a reasonable time or the respondents are strongly suspected to be guilty of a criminal offence. Archibong J. presiding over the case at the trial court, ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding forty million naira as damages against the appellants, on the 25th of July 2011. Subsequently, the respondents (judgement creditors), initiated the garnishee proceeding to enforce the judgement, it was granted by the Federal High Court and the garnishee order absolute was directed to collect the funds from several banks of the appellants (judgement debtors). An appeal was made by the NCC to the Court of Appeal, following their dissatisfaction of the said judgement.
Chronological Order
The case started at the Federal High Court of Lagos with the complaint of the respondents who happened to be the claimant/plaintiff in that case. The judgement was in the favor of the plaintiff, however a motion for stay of execution had already been moved by the defendants now appellants, pending the outcome of the appeal made to the Court of Appeal of Nigeria. This did not deter them from carrying out the enforcement procedures.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the first respondent has the locus standi of a collecting society to initiate proceedings before a court.
Whether the Federal High court’s declaration of the first Respondent’s right to administer their copyright, despite the express provisions of Section 39 of the Copyright Act 2004 is appropriate?
Whether the confiscation of the first Respondent’s properties, arrest and detention of the second and fifth Respondents is a violation of their Fundamental Rights?
Whether the ruling and award of damages by the Federal High Court was justifiable in the light of the above?
Whether the garnishee orders granted by the lower court, while a motion for stay of execution was entered to subsist till the conclusion of the case at the court of appeal.
Whether the absence of the appellant’s affidavit to show cause during the garnishee order Nissi, was sufficient enough to hinder the court from making the garnishee order absolute.
Whether the enforcement of a judgement against the NCC, a federal government agency requires the consent of the Attorney General
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Key contentions by the Appellant/Defendant
- The Appellants argued that the requirements of Attorney-General of the Federation’s consent before attaching funds belonging to a Federal Government agency, made the garnishee proceedings invalid.
2. They contended that the trial judge (Archibong J.) undermined the appellate court, by proceeding with the garnishee hearing and making the order absolute while a Motion for Stay of Execution of the underlying judgment was pending before the Court of Appeal. - They claimed that the order nisi should not have been made absolute by the trial court, when they were not given an opportunity to be heard on their “Affidavit to Show Cause”. This to them, was a denial of their right to fair hearing in a garnishee proceeding.
- While contesting the validity of the subsisting judgement, the appellants expressed their frustration stemming from the N40 million judgment which to them was a rash and erroneous enforcement. They needed a stay of execution to pause enforcement while appealing the merits.
Key contentions by the Respondent/Claimant
- The respondents argued that the NCC has a distinct legal entity, making it’s funds outside the purview of “public funds”, thereby making the AGF’s consent unnecessary.
- They insisted that the lower court was right to proceed. a mere application for a stay is not sufficient to deter the judgment creditor from pursuing all legal means to enforce the subsisting judgment of the court, which is Ruby and valid in their eyes.
- They countered that the procedure was properly followed, as the appellants did not utilize their opportunity to present their case. This gave the court a room to exercise its discretion, finding no sufficient cause to stop the order from being made absolute.
- The respondents maintained that the earlier court judgement was valid, it is presumed correct and must be obeyed, unless and until it is set aside by a superior court, making enforcement the best fruit of litigation.
RELEVANT STATUTES
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended Section 36(1)
The Copyright Act (Cap C28, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004) Sections 39(1),15,36 & 17
The Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Section 84 which states “Where money liable to be attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a public officer in his official capacity, the order nisi shall not be made under the provisions of the last preceding section unless consent to such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer.” The Issue of Attorney General of the Federation’s consent, was used as a shield for government funds
JUDGMENT
In the judgment delivered in the said appeal, this court had found that the 1st – 5th Respondents’ suit on which the judgment of the court below was based was both incompetent and thus a nullity and also lacking in merit and had allowed the appeal, set aside the said judgment of the court below and proceeded to strike out and or dismissed the 1st – 5th Respondents’ suit.
The garnishee orders absolute is consequently hereby vacated and discharged and every step or actions taken there under are also hereby set aside and thus any monies garnisheed under and by virtue of the said null orders of garnishee order absolute shall forthwith be returned or paid back to the Appellants by the 1st – 5th Respondents. There shall be no order as to cost.
- Federal High Court Ruling (2011): The Federal High Court (Archibong J.) found the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) liable for breaching the fundamental rights of MCSN and its officials. The court awarded damages of N40,000,000.00 (Forty Million Naira) to MCSN.
- Enforcement and Garnishee Proceedings: MCSN initiated garnishee proceedings to enforce this monetary judgment. The Federal High Court granted garnishee orders, allowing MCSN to collect the debt from the NCC’s bank accounts. The NCC appealed these enforcement orders.
- Court of Appeal Decision (2017): Finding the forty-million-naira damages, awarded by the Federal High Court, and the engineering of garnishee proceedings by the same court, hence the current case at hand. The Court of Appeal delivered the final judgment allowing the NCC’s appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court that had been in favor of MCSN. This appeal challenged the substantive judgment of the Federal High Court (Archibong J.) that awarded N40 million to MCSN and ruled against the garnishee proceedings.
Verdict
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal filed by the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC).
Important Orders/Directions Issued
- The judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on July 25, 2011, was set aside (overturned).
- The case (Suit No. FHC/L/CS/35/2008) was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
- Costs were awarded against MCSN and in favor of the NCC.
LEGAL REASONING / RATIO DECIDENDI
Locus Standi (Right to Sue) The court held that by virtue of Sections 39(1) & 17 of the Copyright Act 2004, a collecting society required the approval of the Nigerian Copyright Commission to operate. Since the MCSN lacked this approval, it had no legal standing to institute the proceedings or seek enforcement of its rights.
Fair Hearing The court reiterated that if a court raises an issue on its own motion (suo motu), it must invite arguments from both parties before deciding that issue. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the right to fair hearing and can render a decision null and void.
Duty of Court in Evaluating Evidence The court emphasized that a trial court must not make a case for the parties or embark on an inquiry outside the evidence presented. Its findings must be confined to the issues joined by the parties in their pleadings and evidence.
The Court of Appeal’s decision rested on a critical finding that MCSN lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to bring the suit in the first place. The court held that at the time of the events, MCSN was operating as a collecting society without the approval of the NCC, making its activities illegal. An entity engaged in an illegal business, the court reasoned, cannot approach the court to enforce rights arising from that illegality.
Explanation of the court’s reasoning behind its decision
- Locus Standi (Legal Right to Sue): The court found that MCSN, as a collecting society, required the approval of the Nigerian Copyright Commission to operate. Without this approval, MCSN lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to institute the proceedings or enforce any rights in court.
- Powers of Copyright Inspectors: The court held that copyright inspectors have the power to arrest individuals reasonably suspected of committing an offence under the Copyright Act or to seize materials related to such an offence without a warrant.
- Legitimacy of MCSN’s Activities: Since MCSN was operating as a collecting society without the NCC’s approval, its activities were deemed illegal. Consequently, the court ruled that MCSN could not have any rights enforceable in a court of law at the time.
Legal principles/doctrines evolved or applied
The Latin Maxim goes thus: Nihil non exspectanl aedificare stare: One cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. No! it would simply collapse like a pack of cards. See Benjamin Leonard Macfoy V. VAC Limited (1962) AC 152.
This case was a pivotal moment in the long-standing legal struggles of the MCSN, it had impact and significance in the following ways
· Clarification on Regulatory Compliance: The judgment underscored the mandatory nature of NCC approval for collective management organizations (CMOs). It established that operating without such approval not only violates the Copyright Act but also strips the organization of its capacity to seek legal redress for perceived infringements of its rights.
- A Turning Point in a Broader Conflict: This ruling was part of a series of litigations between MCSN and the NCC over MCSN’s status. The outcome of this appeal, which went against MCSN, highlighted the regulatory hurdles the society faced. Interestingly, this landscape shifted in March 2017, when the Attorney-General of the Federation directed the NCC to approve MCSN as a CMO, a development that occurred just before the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this garnishee proceeding and fundamentally altered the regulatory environment.
- Impact on Rights Enforcement: The decision demonstrates how a procedural issue like locus standi can determine the outcome of a case, even where allegations of fundamental rights breaches are involved.
Significant Precedents Cited
- Chief Harold Sodipo V. Lemminkainen OY (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 8) 547: The Supreme Court held that when a trial judge raises an issue suo motu, the judge must invite addresses from counsel for both sides before pronouncing on it.
- Dalek Nigeria Ltd. V. OMPADEC (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 402: The Supreme Court, per Onnoghen JSC, opined that where a court raises an issue suo motu, it must afford the parties the opportunity to address the court on it.
- Ugo V. Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566: This case was also cited to reinforce the principle that a party must be heard on any issue crucial to the determination of a case.
CONCLUSION
The Court of Appeal’s decision was objectively correct on the law—MCSN, by operating as an unapproved collecting society, lacked the legal standing to sue. However, this outcome critically meant the serious allegations of fundamental rights breaches against the NCC were never examined on their merits. The case highlights a difficult tension: the necessity of regulatory compliance versus the potential for a “catch-22” where a regulator can use its own licensing power to shield itself from legal challenge. Ultimately, the ruling reinforced regulatory authority but left the core conflict unresolved, underscoring that a legal victory does not always equate to a resolution of the underlying dispute.
