COSON boss, Okoroji |
In a
landmark ruling by Hon Justice O.E. Abang on October 24, 2014, the court threw
out the case filed by MCSN in which it had sought an order of the Federal High
Court restraining Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON) from parading itself as
Nigeria’s sole collective management organization for musical works and sound
recordings.
In its
battle for legitimacy, MCSN had on the 22nd of March 2013 filed Suit
No. FHC/L/CS/377/2013 against Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON) and the
Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC). In the suit, MCSN had asked the court to
declare that COSON fraudulently misrepresented particulars of its membership to
the NCC which particulars the NCC relied upon to grant approval to COSON. MCSN
also asked the court to revoke the approval granted COSON by the NCC and to
declare that the approval of COSON as a sole collective management organization
deprives MCSN, its members, assignors and affiliates of their fundamental and
constitutional rights to freedom of association, freedom to own and enjoy
property in copyright and access to justice and as such is unconstitutional,
null and void.
In
response, COSON filed a preliminary objection on the 2nd of May 2013
contending that MCSN lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the action
and that MCSN did not obtain the necessary leave of court to file the suit as
required under Order 34, rules 3 and 4 of the Federal High Court Rules. COSON
also contended that the suit amounted to an abuse of the processes of the court
as the relief sought had been litigated upon in the Federal High Court in Suit
No. FHC/L/CS/798/2010 (Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria v. Nigerian
Copyright Commission).
In his
ruling, Justice Abang made a clear distinction between the decision of the
Court of Appeal in MCSN v. Adeokin Records & Anor (2002) and the
decision of the Appeal Court in Compact Disc Technologies v. MCSN (2010).
He said that the Adeokin decision cannot be of assistance to MCSN because the
Court of Appeal interpreted the provisions of section 15 of the Copyright Act
1988 which had no limitation provisions. He went on to say that the Compact
Disc decision of the Court of Appeal applies to the instant case not just
because it is later in time but because the decision interpreted the 2004
Copyright Act which has limitation provisions in section 17 of the Act.
In his
ruling, Justice Abang agreed with COSON that MCSN did not fulfill the
conditions under Order 34, rules 3 and 4 of the Federal High Court Rules. He
also, in alignment with the Court of Appeal decision in Compact Disc
Technologies v. MCSN (2010), ruled that MCSN lacked the requisite locus standi
to institute the action.
On the
long canvassed argument by MCSN that that the requirement for it to be approved
by the NCC before it can operate as a CMO is unconstitutional, Justice Abang
ruled thus: “On the issue of section 17 of the Copyright Act being in
conflict with sections 43 and 44 of 1999 Constitution as contended by
the Plaintiff’s Counsel, it is my view that the requirement to obtain a licence
from the 2nd Defendant to operate as collecting society does not amount to
compulsory acquisition of the Plaintiff’s property. The fact that the Plaintiff
is required under section 17 of Copyright Act to fulfill certain
conditions to be entitled to exercise of a right acquired by him does not in my
view amount to compulsory acquisition of a right to own a property. Section
17 of the Copyright Act is not in any way in conflict with the combined
provisions of sections 43 and 44 of 1999 Constitution”
In
conclusion, Justice Abang said, “I have no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
It is accordingly struck out with cost of N10,000.00 each awarded in favour of
the 1st and 2nd Defendants payable by the Plaintiff”
Reacting
to the judgment, COSON Chairman, Chief Tony Okoroji said, “Justice Abang has
shown that he has a clear grasp of the issues and the law in this matter. He
has not allowed himself to be obfuscated by the multiple litigation maneuver
which MCSN has deployed in a desperate search for a decision it can use to
confuse the general public and in particular, the users of music. The judgment
is crisp, clear and unambiguous. The music industry can move ahead and sing in
harmony. It feels good”
No comments:
Post a Comment