MTN Wins As Court Rejects N1bn Copyright, Confidentiality Claims Over Anniversary Promo

Justice Ayokunle Olayinka Faji of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has dismissed a N1 billion lawsuit filed against MTN Nigeria Communications Plc by Walls and Gates Ltd and its Managing Director, Mr. Okechukwu Udeichi, over alleged copyright infringement, breach of confidentiality, and trademark violations linked to MTN’s 20th Anniversary promotional campaign.

In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, the court, agreeing with MTN’s legal team led by Obafemi Agaba of Jackson, Etti & Edu’ held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any legally protectable right in their proposal titled “20 for 20,” describing the suit as frivolous, speculative, and vexatious.

The action was accordingly dismissed in its entirety, with N3 million awarded as costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1935/2021, claimed that MTN unlawfully exploited their “20 for 20” proposal, which they said was submitted to the telecommunications company on September 17, 2019, ahead of MTN’s 20th anniversary celebrations in 2021.

They alleged that MTN’s anniversary promotion —under which 20 Sport Utility Vehicles were awarded to subscribers—was derived from their proposal and amounted to infringement of their copyright, confidential information, and trademark.

On that basis, they sought damages of N1billion or, in the alternative, an order compelling MTN to account for revenue generated from the promotion and remit 50 per cent of it to them.

MTN denied the claims, arguing that the proposal was an unsolicited business idea that created no contractual or confidential obligation.

The company maintained that its 20th anniversary programme was independently developed and that the plaintiffs’ document amounted to a general business concept, which is not protectable under Nigerian copyright law.

MTN also contended that the plaintiffs lacked a valid registered trademark and failed to show that the company had access to or copied any protectable expression from their work.

In resolving the issues, Justice Faji noted that the plaintiffs conceded during oral argument that their claim for trademark infringement was not proved, leaving only the allegations of breach of confidentiality and copyright infringement for determination.

On the issue of confidentiality, the court held that no confidential relationship existed between the parties.

Justice Faji observed that before sending the proposal to MTN, the plaintiffs had already submitted the same document to the Nigerian Copyright Commission and relied on it for a trademark application, thereby placing it in the public domain.

He further noted that after forwarding the proposal to MTN, the plaintiffs admitted circulating it to other organisations, which destroyed any claim to confidentiality.

According to the court, MTN was under no obligation to respond to an unsolicited proposal in the absence of any contractual, fiduciary, or business relationship, or a non-disclosure agreement.

On the claim of copyright infringement, Justice Faji held that registration with the Nigerian Copyright Commission does not confer copyright, stressing that Nigerian law protects expressions and not ideas or business concepts.

He ruled that the plaintiffs’ “20 for 20 Millennium Promotion” was merely an idea of rewarding customers during an anniversary celebration and lacked the originality and intellectual effort required for copyright protection.

The judge described the proposal as a bare business concept with no original qualities capable of attracting copyright.

He also held that MTN’s use of the expression “MTN 20th Anniversary” was a natural description of an anniversary event and did not derive from any protectable work of the plaintiffs.

He further noted evidence that similar anniversary reward initiatives had been deployed by MTN affiliates in other jurisdictions before the plaintiffs’ proposal.

Justice Faji described the suit as a “gold-digging exercise” aimed at forcing a commercial relationship on MTN.

He criticised the plaintiffs for using MTN’s trademark in their proposal without authorisation and then attempting to ground a billion-naira claim on that same document, adding that precious judicial time had been wasted on a case that ought not to have been filed.

While acknowledging that citizens should be encouraged to approach the courts, the judge stressed that such encouragement must be limited to suits with prima facie merit.

He therefore awarded N3 million in costs in favour of MTN, holding that costs must follow the event.

The court accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the awarded costs to the defendant.