Copyright Society of Nigeria Ltd/Gte v. Nigerian Copyright Commission

Copyright Society of Nigeria Ltd/Gte v. Nigerian Copyright Commission

Court: Court of Appeal, Lagos Division
Appeal No.: CA/LAG/CV/166/2022
Judgment delivered on: July 9, 2026
Appeal from: Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, Suit No. FHC/L/CS/425/2020
Subject matter: Copyright – Collective Management Organisation – Interlocutory injunction – Expiration of operating approval
Jurisdiction: Nigeria

BEFORE:

HON. JUSTICE POLYCARP TERNA KWAHAR, JCA — Delivered the Lead Judgment
HON. JUSTICE FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, JCA
HON. JUSTICE MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, JCA

Reported appearances: James Ononiwu for the Appellant; Lynda Alphaeus for the Respondent.

BETWEEN:

COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA LTD/GTE

Appellant

AND

NIGERIAN COPYRIGHT COMMISSION

Respondent

Facts

The Copyright Society of Nigeria Ltd/Gte (COSON) was granted approval by the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) to operate as a Collective Management Organisation for musical works and sound recordings. COSON’s approval was initially issued in 2010 and renewed in 2013, 2015 and 2017. In April 2018, the NCC suspended the approval following a dispute concerning COSON’s governing board and the organisation’s alleged failure to comply with regulatory directives. The approval subsequently expired by effluxion of time in May 2019.

In March 2020, COSON commenced an action against the NCC at the Federal High Court, Lagos, challenging provisions of the Copyright (Collective Management Organisations) Regulations 2007 and the regulatory actions taken against it. COSON contended, among other things, that the NCC did not have the power to suspend or revoke its operating approval without first obtaining an order of court. It also challenged the Commission’s alleged interference with its management, funds, bank accounts, audits and royalty-collection activities.

Pending the determination of the substantive action, COSON applied for an interlocutory injunction restraining the NCC from:

  • revoking its operating approval;
  • interfering with its management, finances, bank accounts and operations;
  • requiring or conducting audits of its affairs;
  • interfering with the enforcement of its members’ rights;
  • disrupting its relationships with members, affiliates, assignees and reciprocal representation partners; and
  • preventing COSON and its members from earning income from their intellectual property rights.

On December 1, 2021, the Federal High Court refused the application. The lower court held that an interlocutory injunction could not restrain an act that had already been completed. COSON appealed against that ruling.

Appellant’s Arguments

COSON argued that the Federal High Court wrongly treated its operating approval as having been revoked.

It maintained that:

  • the NCC suspended, rather than formally revoked, its approval;
  • the suspension was unlawful and remained capable of being restrained;
  • the NCC could not rely on subsidiary legislation to suspend or revoke an approval without first obtaining a court order;
  • the trial court prematurely decided questions forming the substance of the main action;
  • the lower court did not properly apply the principles governing interlocutory injunctions; and
  • the ruling adversely affected COSON’s right to a fair hearing.

COSON asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the Federal High Court’s ruling and grant the interlocutory relief.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Nigerian Copyright Commission argued that COSON’s approval had already ceased to exist before COSON filed the substantive suit and the application for an injunction.

The Commission maintained that:

  • Regulation 20(2) of the Copyright (Collective Management Organisations) Regulations 2007 empowered it to suspend the approval of a collecting society that failed to comply with its directives;
  • COSON’s approval was suspended in April 2018;
  • the approval subsequently expired by effluxion of time in May 2019;
  • the suspension ended when the underlying approval expired;
  • there was no existing approval capable of being protected by an interlocutory injunction; and
  • an injunction could not restrain an act completed before the commencement of the action.

The NCC also argued that the legality of its power to suspend COSON’s approval was a substantive question that should not be finally determined at the interlocutory stage.

Issue for Determination

Whether, having regard to the suspension and subsequent expiration of COSON’s operating approval before the commencement of the substantive action, the Federal High Court was right to refuse the application for an interlocutory injunction.

What Was Held

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the Federal High Court. The Court held that the evidence presented by both parties showed that COSON’s operating approval had been suspended and had subsequently expired before COSON commenced the substantive action. At the time the suit was filed, there was therefore no existing or valid operating approval capable of being preserved by an interlocutory injunction.

The Court explained that an interlocutory injunction is intended to preserve the state of affairs existing before the commencement of an action. It cannot ordinarily be used to reverse an act completed before the proceedings began. Because COSON’s approval had already been suspended and had expired before the action was commenced, granting the requested injunction would have altered, rather than preserved, the existing position.

The Court also clarified that the Federal High Court’s use of the word “revoked” referred, in context, to the suspension and subsequent expiration of the approval. It did not mean that the NCC had formally revoked an existing licence.

Interlocutory Injunction – Completed Act

An interlocutory injunction cannot ordinarily be granted to restrain an act that was completed before the commencement of the action. A court should not make an order that cannot operate against the existing state of affairs.

Interlocutory Injunction – Preservation of the Status Quo

The relevant status quo was the position existing before COSON filed the substantive suit. At that time, COSON’s operating approval had already been suspended and had subsequently expired.

Regulatory Approval – Expiration by Effluxion of Time

A licence or regulatory approval that has expired by effluxion of time is no longer an existing legal right capable of preservation through an interlocutory injunction.

Revocation – Meaning

Only an existing and valid licence or approval can be revoked. Where an approval has already expired, there is no subsisting approval upon which an order restraining revocation can operate.

Key Holding

An interlocutory injunction cannot preserve or protect an operating approval that was suspended and had expired before the commencement of the action. The remedy is intended to preserve an existing state of affairs, not restore a right that had already ceased to exist.

Concurring Judgments

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo, JCA

Ojo JCA agreed that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the subject matter of a dispute pending the determination of the substantive action.

Her Lordship stated that the remedy could not be used to restrain an act that had already been completed. If a completed act is ultimately found to be unlawful, the appropriate remedy may be a perpetual or mandatory injunction after the substantive claims have been determined.

Muslim Sule Hassan, JCA

Hassan JCA agreed with the reasoning and conclusions in the lead judgment and adopted the consequential orders, including the order dismissing the appeal.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal:

  • dismissed the appeal for lack of merit;
  • affirmed the Federal High Court’s ruling of December 1, 2021; and
  • awarded costs of ₦200,000 against COSON.

The judgment concerned COSON’s application for interlocutory relief. It did not finally determine the substantive claims challenging the Nigerian Copyright Commission’s regulatory powers.

Procedural History

DateEvent
May 2010NCC granted COSON approval to operate as a Collective Management Organisation.
2013, 2015 and 2017COSON’s operating approval was renewed.
April 2018NCC suspended COSON’s operating approval.
May 2019COSON’s approval expired by effluxion of time.
March 2020COSON commenced Suit No. FHC/L/CS/425/2020 at the Federal High Court, Lagos.
December 1, 2021The Federal High Court refused COSON’s application for an interlocutory injunction.
2022COSON filed Appeal No. CA/LAG/CV/166/2022.
July 9, 2026The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Federal High Court’s ruling.

Why This Case Matters

The decision explains the limits of an interlocutory injunction where the right an applicant seeks to protect ceased to exist before the action commenced. The Court distinguished between preserving an existing right and attempting to restore a licence or approval that had already expired. It confirmed that an interlocutory injunction cannot ordinarily reverse a completed act.

The decision did not finally determine whether the NCC lawfully exercised its regulatory powers. That question remained part of the substantive action before the Federal High Court.

Related Proceedings

Research Citing This Case

Editorial Note

This case record was prepared from publicly available reports of the Court of Appeal judgment. Nooktoria has not obtained the complete judgment. The statement of facts, arguments and holdings is limited to information reproduced in those reports.

Sources