Veno Marioghae Mbanefo v. Airtel Network Limited

Law Cases and Principles

Veno Marioghae Mbanefo v. Airtel Network Limited

In the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division
Judgement delivered on: January 26, 2026
Citation: 69 NIPJD [FHC. 2026] 1822/2022
Charge No.: FHC/L/CS/1822/2022
Jurisdiction: Nigeria

Judgement delivered by: Honourable Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala

Copyright Infringement, Musical Works, Advertising and Telemarketing – The Plaintiff alleged that Airtel Network Limited used her musical work, Nigeria Go Survive, for advertising, promotion, and telemarketing without acknowledging her as the author or copyright owner and without obtaining her licence or authorisation. She sought declarations of copyright infringement, damages, and injunctive relief.

I. FACTS

The Plaintiff commenced the action by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated September 22, 2022, and filed on September 23, 2022. She alleged that Airtel Network Limited used her musical work, Nigeria Go Survive, for advertising, promotion, and telemarketing its business, products, and services without naming her as the author or copyright owner and without first obtaining her consent, licence, or authorisation. She contended that Airtel’s acts infringed her statutory rights under the Copyright Act.

Airtel denied liability and urged the Court to dismiss the action.

II. RELIEFS SOUGHT

The Plaintiff sought, among other reliefs:

  • A declaration that Airtel’s use of Nigeria Go Survive for advertising, promoting, and telemarketing its business, products, and services without naming her as the author or copyright owner breached her statutory rights under the Copyright Act.
  • A declaration that Airtel’s use of the musical work without her consent, licence, or authorisation constituted copyright infringement.
  • General damages of ₦200 million.
  • Mandatory and perpetual injunctions restraining Airtel from continuing to use the musical work.
  • In the alternative, an order directing Airtel to render an account of the profits allegedly derived from the infringement under the supervision of the Nigerian Communications Commission.

III. JUDGEMENT

On January 26, 2026, the Federal High Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff.

The Court held that:

  • The Plaintiff established ownership of the musical work through evidence of authorship, historical dissemination, and fixation of the work.
  • Airtel reproduced a substantial part of the protected work without licence or authorisation.
  • The recorded telemarketing messages and corroborating witness testimony established copyright infringement.
  • The electronic evidence complied with the statutory requirements for admissibility, and the Defendant’s objections to the evidence were rejected.
  • The Plaintiff proved her claim on the balance of probabilities.

IV. KEY HOLDING

The Federal High Court held that:

  • Copyright ownership may be established through evidence of authorship, historical dissemination, and fixation.
  • Copyright infringement is established where a substantial part of a protected work is reproduced without licence or authorisation.
  • Electronic evidence, when supported by witness testimony and complying with statutory requirements, is admissible to prove copyright infringement.
  • Once infringement is established, the Court may grant declaratory relief, injunctions, damages, and costs.

V. OUTCOME

The Court:

  • Declared that Airtel’s unauthorised use of Nigeria Go Survive constituted copyright infringement.
  • Granted a mandatory injunction directing Airtel to cease reproducing or using the musical work for advertising, business, telemarketing, and promotional purposes.
  • Granted a perpetual injunction restraining Airtel from any future unauthorised use of the work.
  • Awarded ₦200 million in general damages.
  • Awarded ₦10 million as costs.
  • Refused the Plaintiff’s alternative claim for an account of profits.

VI. SIGNIFICANCE

This decision is an important authority on copyright protection for musical works in Nigeria. It confirms that copyright ownership may be established through evidence of authorship, historical dissemination, and fixation, and that infringement is established where a substantial part of a protected work is reproduced without licence or authorisation. The judgment also affirms the admissibility of properly authenticated electronic evidence and demonstrates the Federal High Court’s willingness to grant substantial damages and injunctive relief where copyrighted works are commercially exploited without the owner’s consent.

Veno Marioghae Mbanefo v. Airtel Network Limited

Related Cases