Michael Oluwole v. Osinachi Joseph Egbu

Law Cases and Principles

Michael Oluwole (Maye) v. Osinachi Joseph Egbu (Sinach)

In the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division
Judgement delivered on: July 24, 2026
Citation: 69 NIPJD [FHC. 2026] 402/2024
Charge No.: FHC/L/CS/402/2024
Jurisdiction: Nigeria

Judgement delivered by: Honourable Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa

Copyright Infringement, Musical Works, Authorship, Co-Ownership and Performer’s Rights – The Plaintiff alleged that he was a co-author and co-owner of the musical work Way Maker, claiming that his recording, mixing, mastering and instrumental contributions entitled him to copyright ownership and performer’s rights. He alleged that the Defendant commercially exploited the work without sharing licensing income or obtaining written agreements concerning his contributions, and sought declarations of co-authorship and co-ownership, an account of royalties and licensing revenues, ₦5 billion in damages, and injunctive relief

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL OLUWOLE (MAYE) …………………………………. PLAINTIFF

AND

OSINACHI JOSEPH EGBU (SINACH) ………………………… DEFENDANT

Appearances: Matthew Enilobo, Esq. for the Plaintiff; Emeka Etiaba, SAN with him, Omolola Aderolu, Esq. and O. G. Ofomata, Esq. for the Defendant.

Facts

The dispute concerned ownership of the internationally acclaimed gospel song Way Maker, released in December 2015.

Michael Oluwole (“Maye”), a music producer and recording engineer, alleged that he made significant contributions to the production of the song. According to him, he recorded, mixed and mastered the song, created the piano, string and synthesizer accompaniments, and contributed to the sound recording without executing a written agreement transferring his rights.

He argued that these contributions entitled him to recognition as an author and co-owner of the musical work. Maye further alleged that Sinach commercially exploited the song worldwide without sharing licensing revenues or entering into written agreements concerning his contributions.

He therefore commenced Suit No. FHC/L/CS/402/2024 seeking declarations of co-authorship and co-ownership, together with monetary and injunctive reliefs.

Sinach denied the allegations. She maintained that she independently composed the song and that the melody, lyrics and arrangement had already been created before Maye became involved. She also stated that she had performed the song before the commercial recording and that Maye’s role was limited to mixing and mastering the already completed work, for which he was paid ₦150,000.

The matter proceeded to trial before Hon. Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa.

Reliefs Sought

The Plaintiff sought, among other reliefs:

  1. A declaration that he was an author and co-owner of Way Maker.
  2. A declaration that licensing income from the work should be shared equitably between the parties.
  3. An order directing the Defendant to disclose all copyright licences and assignments relating to the work.
  4. An order compelling the Defendant to account for all royalties and licensing income.
  5. Payment of the Plaintiff’s share of all accrued revenues.
  6. A declaration that the Defendant failed to execute written agreements concerning his contributions.
  7. A declaration that his performer’s rights had been infringed.
  8. A perpetual injunction restraining further reproduction, distribution, licensing or public performance of Way Maker.
  9. General damages of ₦5 billion.

Defendant’s Defence

The Defendant denied liability.

She argued that:

  • she was the sole composer and author of the musical work;
  • the Plaintiff merely rendered studio engineering services;
  • he was paid for those services;
  • providing technical production services does not confer copyright ownership; and
  • the Plaintiff was not entitled to performer’s rights, copyright ownership or publishing royalties.

Issues the Court Had to Determine

Based on the parties’ claims and the judgment, some of the issues the Court had to determine included:

  1. Whether the Plaintiff proved that he was an author or co-author of the musical work Way Maker.
  2. Whether recording, mixing, mastering and providing instrumental accompaniments entitled the Plaintiff to copyright ownership or co-ownership.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff established that his performer’s rights had been infringed.
  4. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to royalties, licensing income, injunctive reliefs and damages.

Decision

The Federal High Court dismissed the entire suit.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa held that the Plaintiff failed to prove that he was an author or co-owner of Way Maker.

The Court accepted the Defendant’s evidence that Way Maker had already been created before the Plaintiff became involved, that the Plaintiff was engaged only to mix and master the recording for commercial release, and that he was paid for those services under an oral agreement.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claims for co-authorship, co-ownership, licensing income, performer’s rights and damages.

Key Holdings

  • Copyright authorship belongs to the natural person who creates the original expressive elements of a musical work.
  • Recording, mixing, mastering or providing technical production services does not, by itself, make a person an author of the musical work.
  • Studio engineers and producers become authors only where they create original copyrightable expression.
  • The Plaintiff failed to establish that his contributions amounted to original authorship.
  • Payment for studio engineering services supported the Defendant’s position that the Plaintiff acted as a service provider rather than a copyright owner.
  • The Plaintiff was therefore not entitled to copyright ownership, co-ownership, performer’s rights or licensing revenues.

Outcome

  • The Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.
  • The Court declined to declare the Plaintiff a co-author or co-owner of Way Maker.
  • The Plaintiff was not awarded royalties or licensing income.
  • The request for a perpetual injunction was refused.
  • The Plaintiff’s claim for ₦5 billion in general damages was dismissed.

Significance of the Decision

The decision reinforces the principle that copyright authorship of a musical work belongs to the person who creates its original expressive elements, such as the melody, lyrics or musical arrangement. It also clarifies that recording, mixing, mastering or providing other technical production services does not, without more, confer copyright ownership or co-authorship. The case highlights the distinction between creative authorship and technical studio services under Nigerian copyright law..

Related Cases