Book Review: Nigerian Copyright Law Report 2019 (N.Cl.R)
Vol 1, Cases 1-6: Law Report Edited By Founding Editor And Chairman
Governing Board, Nigerian Copyright Commission, Dr Tonye Clinton
Jaja.
THE BOOK WAS REVIEWED BY PROF ABIODUN AMUDA-KANNIKE, SAN,
PROVOST, COLLEGE OF LAW, KWARA STATE UNIVERSITY, MALETE, VIA
ILORIN, KWARA STATE, NIGERIA, WHICH EVENT TOOK PLACE AT ROCK VIEW
HOTEL (ROYALE) ABUJA, ON MONDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST, 2019.
TITLE:
Nigerian Copyright Law Report 2019 (NCLR) VOL 1
AUTHOR:
DR. TONYE CLINTON JAJA
(Chairman, Governing Board; Nigerian Copy Right Commission)
PUBLISHER:
PAGES:
172 PAGES
PRICE:
Not stated
The book was reviewed by Prof Abiodun
Amuda-Kannike, SAN, Provost, College of Law, Kwara State
University, Malete, via Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria, at Rock View
Hotel (Royale) Abuja, on Monday, 19th August,
2019.
Book Reviewer: E-mail address: [email protected][1]
Book Reviewer: Telephone Number: 08033256756
INTRODUCTION
The desire and necessity for law reporting can be traced to the
important doctrine called “judicial precedent” which is the core
aspect of Nigeria’s jurisprudence and it has become part of us in
legal practice. As a result of the need for our courts to be
consistent with their judgments and decisions based on previous
authorities and decisions, the assemblage and documentations of the
same in a permanent form becomes necessary in order to allow the
judges and lawyers to comfortably make reference to them.[1]
The official publication started in Nigeria through the Nigerian
law reports (N.L.R) published by the justice department commencing
from 1910 and running up to 1956 when it was stopped because of the
creation of regions in Nigerian then. There was the West African
Court of Appeal Report (WACA), followed by the Federal Supreme
Court Reports (FSC)which dealt with the decisions of 1956 and
1960, we thereafter had All Nigeria Law Reports (ALL NLR) published
in 1961 and up to the 1970s. Officially, the judgments of the
supreme court of Nigeria (SC Reports) came alive during the tenure
of Hon. Justice Teslim Elias who was the Chief Justice of Nigeria.
By the 80s, this same publication came to an end. Then came the
time of Hon. Justice Muhammed Uwais who gave Lai Babatunde SAN, the
permission to publish SC reports and the Supreme Court reports
became a private publication and has continued till date.[2]
With respect to commercial publications of Law reports, one
cannot forget to mention, Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR) which
was the first private Law report published as far back as 1964.
Thereafter, there had been several Law reports published, such
as;
(i) Federation of Nigeria Law
Reports (FNLR)
(ii) Supreme Court of Nigeria Judgments
(SCNJ)
(iii) Nigerian Supreme Court Cases (NSCC)
(iv) Supreme Court Reports (SC)
(v) Federation Weekly Law Reports
(FWLR)
(vi) All Federation Weekly Law Report (All
FWLR)
(vii) Weekly Reports of Nigeria (WRN)
(viii) Nigerian Weekly Law Reports
(ix) Legal Paedia
(x) All other electronic Law Reports
There exist also publications of Law reports which concentrates
on specialized area of Law and they includes;
(i) Nigerian Copyright Law Reports
2019 (NCLR) VOL 1[3]
(ii) Commercial Law Reports of Nigeria
(CLRN)
(iii) Law Reports of Election Cases in Nigeria
(LRECN)
(iv) Nigeria Criminal Reports (NCR)
(v) Banking and Financial Law Reports
(BFL)
(vi) Nigerian Banking Law Reports (NBLR)
(vii) Investments and Securities Law Reports
(viii) Tax Laws Reports of Nigeria (TLRN)
(ix) Nigerian Constitutional Law Reports
(NCLR)
(x) Failed Banks Tribunal of Nigeria Law
Reports
(xi) Sharia Law Reports of Nigeria
(xii) Election Petition Reports and Nigerian Labour
Law Reports (NLLR)
It is however important that in our bid to do a proper review of
the above named Law report, it is important to define the following
terms;
(i) Book review
(ii) Copyrights
(iii) Law Reports
BOOK REVIEW:
A book review is a thorough description, critical analysis,
and/or evaluation of the quality meaning, and significance of a
book, often in relation to prior research on the topic. Reviews
generally ranged from 500-1000 words, but may be longer or shorter
depending on the length and complexity of the book being reviewed.
The overall purpose of the review is whether the review is a
comparative analysis examining two or more books that focus on the
same topic. Professors assign book reviews as practice in carefully
analyzing complex scholarly texts and to assess your ability to
effectively synthesize research so that you reach an informed
perspective about a research problem or issue.[4
There are two general approaches to reviewing a book:
i. Descriptive
Review: presents the content and structure of a book
as objectively as possible, describing essential information about
a book’s purpose and authority.
ii. Critical
Review: describes and evaluates the book in relation
to accepted literary and historical standards and supports this
evaluation with evidence from the text and in most cases, in
contrast to and in comparison with the research of the
others.[5]
COPYRIGHT:
A copyright is an intellectual property right granted by a
government that gives the owner exclusive right to use, with some
limited exceptions, original expressive work. Examples of materials
entitled to copyright protection includes original works of
fiction, non-fiction, music architectural designs, artistic
paintings, and sculptures.[6]
The Copyright Act[7] did not define the word “works”, but
in the section of the Act[8], it makes provision that the
followings shall be eligible for protection:
(a) Literary works
(b) Musical works
(c) Artistic works
(d) Cinematographic films
(e) Sound recordings
(f) Broadcasts.
Therefore, any work which is created but does not fall within
the above definition cannot come under the protection of copyright.
Furthermore, the issue is not to create “work” alone but:
1. Sufficient effort must
have been expended in making the work to give it an original
character and,
2. The work must have been
fixed in any definite medium of expression now known or later to be
developed, from which it can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise
communicated either directly or with the aid of any machine or
device.[9] Other conditions actually exist in the Act, which
means[10] it must be a model or pattern with intention to
industrially multiply them and must not infringe the copyright
work.
LAW REPORTS:
A Law report is a record of a judicial decision on a point of
law which sets a precedent. Not all decisions taken in a Court of
Law set a precedent, however interesting they may be in terms of
the facts of the case or its consequences. A decision is only
reportable if it lays down a new principle of Law, or changes or
clarifies the existing Law.[11]
Furthermore, Law reports or reporters are series of books that
contain judicial opinions from a selection of case Law decided by
Courts. When a particular judicial opinion is referenced, the Law
report series in which the opinion is printed will determine the
case citation format.[12]
Law reports includes those in book format such as the one under
review and other ones as could be found electronically such as;
(i) Law Pavilion Electronic Law
Reports
(ii) Law Report E-Library, High Court of
Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
(iii) Nigeria Internet Law Reports
(NILR)[13]
(iv) Legal Pedia
1.
DESCRIPTION
The book title as could be seen by all of us is titled “Nigerian
Copyright Law report, 2019 (NCLR). It is the volume one of the book
that can be seen now as other volumes will come up after this
volume one, in order to make the opportunity of easy references and
citations available to Judges, Lawyers and
researchers/academicians.[14]
We have earlier shown that the Author of this Law report and the
founder of the Law report outfit is Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja, who is
currently, the Chairman Governing Board, Nigerian Copyright
Commission. Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja referred to above can be
described as an astute Lawyer, a brilliant academic, and a
researcher to the core and to show his perseverance for knowledge,
he has the following Degree Certificate;[15]
(i) Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) (Hons)
between October, 1998 – March, 2003.
(ii) Bar Certificate B.L (Hons) Oct 2003
– October, 2004.
(iii) Master of Laws (LL.M) (Hons)
Legislative Drafting Oct
2005 – September, 2006.
(iv) Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Law,
Institute of Advance
Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study, (SAS), University of
London in August 31st, 2013.
Furthermore, it is not in doubt to state that Dr Tonye Clinton
Jaja has written several articles and published books and out of
the numerous books are the followings;
(i) Access to Justice in Sharia
Courts, reviewed in Cambrian Law Review VOL 37, 2006, Aberst
Wyth University,
United Kingdom.[16]
(ii) “A Dichotomy of Legislative
Drafting and Law making Terms” Germany Academic Publishers July,
2012.[17]
(iii) Legislative Drafting: An introduction to
modern Theories and Principles (Oisterwijk, The Netherlands, Wolf
Legal Publishers, August, 2012.
(iv) “Legislative Drafting office as a tool
for Regional integration: A comparative
study of EU and ECOWAS”
in L. Hamalai (ed) 40 years of regional
integration by the
ECOWAS. A Book of readings (Abuja: National Institute of
Legislative Studies, 2015).
(v) Legislative Drafting and Statutory
interpretation: An introduction (Lagos: MALTHOUSE PRESS 2015).
(vi) Legislative Drafting Consultant, National
Institute of Legislative Studies, Abuja, 2015.[18]
The general subject area of this Law report is on Copyright Law
reports, which generally dealt with cases that had been tried
dealing with copyright and which judgment has been delivered by the
courts in Nigeria.
The purpose of the Law reports are multi-dimensional and are as
follows;[19]
(i) To make sure there are
availability of Law reports on
copyright as a specialized
area of the Law for easy accessibility of Lawyers, Judges and
researchers.
(ii) To make sure that copyright Law
maintain a different pride of place among
those cases reported
dealing with intellectual properties which are usually
lumped together with cases dealing with Patents, Designs,
Copyrights because, intellectual property is said to connote any
intellectual creation which involves works such as literary works,
artistic works, inventions, designs, symbols, names,
images, computer code and other works. The aim of
intellectual property Law generally is the protection of the
“Creators”.[20]
(iii) To develop the copyrights Law more as a
lot of Judges, Lawyers, Academicians would find easy
sources,[21] to write briefs, judgments, articles and books
and it is through the reading of the case Laws reported on
Copyright issues that they on their own will comment on those cases
reported,[22] have more knowledge on how the judgment was
arrived at and whether
the case or
cases on specific area of Copyrights have been overruled or
sustained by the
court.
The scope of this Law reports for now is limited to Nigerian
cases, Copyright cases, Court of Appeal cases and Supreme Court
cases. The scope of the Law reports enables the Author to
concentrate on the areas with limited scope instead of adding those
Copyright cases from the Lower Court or outside the Country which
are usually limited in terms of usages as those authorities when
cited are usually described as “persuasive
authorities” and not “binding
authorities” as far as hierarchy of courts are
concerned and most especially, the “doctrine of
judicial precedent”[23]
The structure of the Law report is quite complex because this
sort of review is a bit different from normal book review, because
the review here has to do with “Law reports
review” even though Law reports are also classified
in the copyright Law as “books”, in this situation, Law reports
does not deal with chapters as in normal books, but Law reports has
to do with the cases as reported one after the other.
Therefore, it is the way and manner the cases are reported that
we shall take as if they are chapters by chapters.
The cases reported can be divided into six (6) different
segments and broken down as follows;
(i) The first case reported is
called; MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA LTD/GTE V COMPACT DISC
TECHNOLOGY LTD & ORS[24] which was reported from pages
iii-30.
(ii) The second case reported is called;
NIGERIA COPYRIGHT COMMISSION & ORS V MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY
OF NIGERIA LIMITED GTE & ORS,[25] which was reported from
pages 31-59.
(iii) The third case reported is called;
PERFORMING AND MECHANICAL RIGHT SOCIETY LTD/GTE V SKYE
BANK PLC & ORS,[26] which was
reported from pages 61-80.
(iv) The fourth case reported is called;
VISAFONE COMMUNICATIONS LTD V MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA
LTD/GTE & ANOR[27] which was reported from pages
81-108.
(v) The fifth case reported is called;
UBI BASSEY ENO V NIGERIAN COPYRIGHT COMMISSION[28] which was
reported from pages 109-130.
(vi) The sixth case, which is the last case
reported is called; “PLATEAU PUBLISHING CO LTD V CHIEF CHUKS
ADOPHY[29] which was reported from pages 131-161
The Author decided to round up the Law reports by providing
“Index” to the Law reports, which can be seen on pages 162-173 and
the index were arranged in alphabetical orders with alphabets A, B,
and C on pages 162-165, alphabet D on pages 165-166, alphabets E-L
from pages 166-168, alphabets N-F on pages 169-171, alphabets R-W
on pages 171-173.
There exist no author argument in the law reports. This is
because it is a law report, different from books generally where
the author’s opinion will be of significant importance, not
withstanding that law reports themselves are books.[30]
A book is said to be a written or printed work consisting of
pages glued or sewn together a long one side and bound in covers.
It also refers to a bound set of blank sheets for writing in. A
book is a number of pieces of paper, usually with words printed on
them, which are fastened together and fixed inside a cover of
stronger paper or cardboard. Books contain information, stories, or
poetry.[31]
Law reports however has to contain judicial opinions from a
selection of case law decided by courts. These contains only
judgments of the court and no author’s argument or thesis.
Accordingly, we can see that it is not possible in this book
review of the law reports to authoritatively bring out the
thesis/argument of the author as it use to be for other books.
We would have been able to bring out the author’s thesis or
argument even if the law reports contains any thesis or argument,
even if it is a page or half a page. The above analysis becomes
necessary in order to show the reasons why we did not analyse the
argument as expected in a book review
2. CRITICAL
ANALYSIS
The Author reported six cases, and he drew sources of his
judgments/cases reported from the court of appeal, and Supreme
Court. In dealing with this area, we shall look at the ways each of
the cases were reported:
(i) MUSICAL COPY
RIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA LTD/GTE V COMPACT DISC TECHNOLOGY LTD
& ORS[32]
The Author was able to quickly introduce us to the ratio
decidendi of the case which he showed as dealing with category of
person who have the locus standi to institute an action for copy
right infringement.
The Author further brought out ratio 2 of the above case which
still has to do with intellectual property tagged copy right
and he gave the fact of the case herein as follows; The Appellant
here in instituted the suit at the trial court in its capacity as
owner, assignee and exclusive licensee of the copyright in the
musical works of certain named authors, publishers, composers and
institutions within the territory of the federal republic of
Nigeria. The Appellant alleged that the respondents had infringed
on the said copyright by importing, recording, producing,
distributing and offering for sale of the public without its
authority the musical works of its assignors. It therefore sought
various declaratory and injunctive reliefs against them.
It is the respondents contention that the appellant lacked the
locus standi to institutethe action because it is a collecting
society without license to operate by the Nigerian copyright
commission in line with section 39 of the copyright Act, by relying
on section 15 A, 32 (B) (2), (4) (5) and (6) of the Act.[33]
The Respondents motion to dismiss this suit for lack of locus
standi was unsuccessful. The motion was dismissed. The respondents
being aggrieved filed an appeal and the court of appeal allowed the
appeal and dismissed the suit at the lower court. The Appellants
further appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed. The
decision of the court of appeal was set aside and the high court
decision was restored.
The above can be seen as the strongest details in the above case
reported by the author, however, the weakest points in the authors
report of the above named case are as follows;
(i) The name of the judge who commenced
the judgment from pages iii – ii who was Hon.justice Kekere – Ekun
J.S.C was not mentioned until page ii when we thought it would have
been mentioned from the beginning of the judgment.
(ii) The numbering of the pages ought to start
from page i and not iii
(iii) The ratio decidendi was not arranged to bring
out the ratio decidendi to show what the basis of the decision of
the court was really.
(iv) The facts of the decision of the court was not
summarized.
(2) NIGERIAN COPYRIGHT
COMMISSION &ORS V MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA LIMITED
G T E & ORS[34]
The Author with respect to the above case compared to the first
case that was reported, improved. This is because; he was able to
distilled the radio decidendi as follows;
(i) Practice and procedure – Academic or
hypothetic questions issues. Attitude of courts thereto.
(ii) Action – conditional precedent. Effect of non
compliance with condition precedent before commencing an
action.
(iii) Constitutional law – constitutional right
(iv) Intellectual property – copyright: whether a
collecting society must seek and obtain the approval of the Nigeria
copyright commission to operate.
(v) Duty of court to consider/ pronounce on all
issues raised before it.
(vi) Interpretation of section 28 (1) and (2)[35]of the
copyright Act as to whether copyright inspectors can arrest without
warrant.
(vii) Criminal law and procedure re – seizure, restitution
forfeiture and disposition of property.
The facts of the above named case has to do with an application
made by the Respondents under the fundamental rules that they are
entitled to their right to dignity of their personal liberty and
rights to move freely, that their operation is legal and subsisting
and to own and enjoy the copy rights and property rights as
guaranteed constitutionally, perpetual injunctions from harassment,
intimidation, arrest and detention, and monetary claim.
The trial court after looking into case granted the application.
The Appellants appealed. The court of appeal allowed the applicants
appeal. The court found out that by Section 39 of the copy right
Act, the 1st respondent cannot act as collecting
society having failed to obtain approval under the law.
The above can also be seen as the strongest details of the
author’s work in reporting this case, through the medium of law
report, but the weakest points in the author’s report of the case,
are as follows;
(i) The facts of the case was
difficult for us to summarise or even distil out as it takes time
to come out with a personal summary of the facts of the case.
(ii) The issues involved in the case
were used by the author as the ratio decidendi.
(3) PERFORMING AND
MECHANICAL RIGHT SOCIETY LTD/G.T.E V SKYE BANK, PLC &
ORS[36]
The Author in dealing with the above named case, also introduced
us to the ratio decidendi of the said case when he started with
ratio 1 on Appeal/Cross Appeal/Respondent notice which culminated
in the question “whether a respondent who did not file a cross
appeal or respondent notice can be allowed to attack the judgment
appealed against”?
The Author also brought out ratio 2 which is on
“Appeal-Ground(s) of appeal and the question was raised thus”
whether ground(s) of appeal as well as issue(s) formulated there
from must arise from the decision appealed against and effect of
failure thereof”?
The 3rd ratio decidendi has to do with
court-jurisdiction and the question raised herein is “what
determines jurisdiction of court to entertain a cause/matter”?
The 4th ratio decidendi can be seen from the
interpretation of statutes. It further discuss “sections 17 and 39
of the copyright Act cap 68 laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990”
(Now LFN 2004).
The fact of this case can be seen commencing from page 64 of the
law report, as Hon. Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, JCA delivered the
lead judgement. The case was tried before the Federal High Court,
Lagos, the 2nd and 3rd respondents
claimed, declaration, injunction and damages against the Appellant
and the 1st Respondent for alleged infringement of
the copyright to a musical work in respect of which they are
assignee and holder and owner and assignee respectively[37].
The Appellant, and 1st Respondent filed motions
challenging the jurisdiction[38] of the federal high court to
entertain the suit on the following grounds;
(i) That the plaintiffs are not an
authorized collecting society under the laws in Nigeria
(ii) That the plaintiffs action is
illegal as it offends the provisions of the copyright Act.
(iii) That the Defendant was duly licenced for
the use of the work by the 2nd Defendant.
The above objections were raised by the Appellant as could be
seen above while the 1stRespondent based the challenge
of the jurisdiction on the following grounds;
(i) That the plaintiffs are
stopped in law from denying that they carry on business and operate
as collecting societies as provided for under section 32B of the
copyright licenses and collecting royalties with respect to musical
works and sound recordings in Nigeria.
(ii) That the plaintiffs are carrying on
the afore said business without the requisite approval of the
Nigerian copyright commission contrary to section 15A of the
copyright Act.
(iii) That the plaintiffs not being approved
to operate as collecting societies under section 32B of the
copyright Act, lack the requisite locus standi in law to institute
and prosecute this suit.
(iv) That the plaintiffs are not the assignees
of the owner of the copyright in the song “I wish I knew how it
would feel to be free” (the work) as contemplated under the
copyright Act and cannot institute the suit.
The trial lower court heard the motions together, listened to
all the parties and held as follows.
“Because, the plaintiffs are not a collecting society, but have
said they are the owner, assignee and exclusive licensee of the
copyright, they need not call section 39 to play and consequently,
they cannot be said to have acted illegally by not complying with
the provisions of the said sections”
The Appellant appealed against the said decision contending that
the learned trial judge was wrong. The court of appeal after a
thorough scrutiny of the casedismissed the appeal. The ruling of
the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the
2nd and 3rdRespondents against the
Appellant and the 1st Respondent was
affirmed[39].
The above can be seen as the strongest details in the
above case as reported by the author and he did his best by showing
us the essence of what the court sees as, collecting society,
interpretation of sections 17, 32 and 39 of the copyright Act.
The weakest points in the way the above case was reported can be
appreciated as follows;
(i) The name of Hon justice
Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, J.CA was lightly typed not darkened as
his other two brother judges when reading their contributions. One
may be tempted to think only two justices delivered the
judgment.
(ii) The facts of the case was not
summarized for easy understanding before one will read the main
judgment.
(iii) The issues that were raised in the
judgment ought to be brought out as issues before even the facts of
the case and not ratio decidendi.
(4) VISAFONE COMMUNICATIONS
LTD V MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA LTD/G.T.E &
ANOR[40]
The Author with respect to this case the he reported did well by
bringing out the subject matter of the reported case which he
referred to as “ratio decidendi”.
He did well also by showing the date of judgment of the case and
the judges of the court of Appeal who sat on the case just like in
the other cases, he reported. The ratio 1 was on condition
precedent to commencing action for infringement of copyright.
The brought out ratio 2 of the case which he referred to as case
law-judicial precedent/stare decisis, he concluded by referring to
it as “nature and effect of”. What he meant by this is to
say; nature and effect of case-law judicial precedent/stare
decisis, as relevant to the present case.
The Author while doing the right thing in reporting this case
brought out ratio 3 as ratio decidendi which he referred to as
action-locus standi and eventually summed it up to say” when to
determine. What he meant is; when to determine action-locus
standi.
Furthermore in ratio 4 of the Author’s ratio decidendi, he
brought up the issue of practice and procedure on when to file and
when not to file preliminary objection.
The Author in doing marvelous work to this report, showed to us
the Justice of the Court of Appeal who delivered the lead judgment
and this was delivered by Hon. Justice Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki,
JCA[41].
The facts of the case shows that it was an appeal against the
ruling of the Federal High Court, Lagos, in respect of the
Appellant motion. The respondents instituted the suit on the
allegation that the Appellant infringed on his copyright. The
Appellant upon entering appearing and filing his statement of
defence, also filed a motion raising preliminary objection,
challenging the locus standi of the Respondents to file the suit on
the ground that there has been non compliance with sections 17 and
39 of the Copyright Act, 2004. The court said that the matter
should proceed on the merit and that preliminary objection shall be
taken at the end of the trial.
The Appellant eventually filed motion to strike out the case as
being an abuse of court process and that the continuous hearing of
the case is unlawful and illegal. The respondents filed a counter
affidavit and the lower court held that the motion is refused, that
trial of the case on the merit should continue[42].
The Appellant appealed to the Court of Court, on two issues;
i. Whether the lower court was right
when it held that it cannot take the benefit of the decision in
Compact Disc Technologies Ltd & 2 ors V Musical Copyright
Society of Nigeria Ltd/gte CA/L/787/2008 on ground that it was not
a party to the case and the case has taken two years before the
present case came up.
ii. Whether the Appellant
motion to strike out is indeed subversive of the lower court
earlier directive that the case should go on and preliminary
objection be taken at the end of trial.
The Appellant succeeded. Appeal was allowed, the suit was struck
out. The court of Appeal felt that the lower court was wrong not to
have acted on the judicial precedent of Compact Disc case and that
the Respondent had failed to establish the necessary statutory
pre-requisite to enable it to competently institute the said
proceedings against the Appellant[43]. The court held that the
Compact Disc case involved the Respondent and the case in essence
stated that Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN) pursuant to
sections 17 and 39 of the Copyright aAct, ought to have obtained
prior approval before instituting any action for the infringement
of Copyright or any right granted by the Copyright Act[44]. The
decision is effective against any one or the Musical Copyright
Society of Nigeria.
The above analysis of the manner in which the case was reported
showed us the strongest effort of the Author in carrying out this
work, however, the weakest points in the Authors report of the
above case are thus;
i. The character of
the words and case reported as printed out looks too small and may
not be easily read by those who are old or those who have bad eye –
sight.
ii. The issues were not
clearly stated as you can see in NWLR and ALLFWLR or FWLR.
iii. The ratio decidendi is too long
and ought to be summarised.
iv. Facts of the case in summary
form is not provided for.
5. UBI BASSEY ENO V
NIGERIAN COPYRIGHT COMMISSION[45]
The Author in this area, while reporting this case changed his
style of reporting. This may be due to the fact that this case is
not civil in nature but criminal case prosecuted in the
court. The style of highlighting the facts of the case and
the holdings of the court as could be seen on pages 109 and 110 of
the law report is very good as it enable the reader to quickly
understand what the case is all about.
The lead judgment by Hon. Justice Omokri J.C.A, also highlighted
the offences before the court which was shown as counts 1 – 4 as
could be seen on pages 111 – 113 of the report.
The Author did well in reporting this case because unlike most
of the cases, we had earlier commented upon, this case went through
full trial rather than preliminary objection as found in earlier
cases reported.
The facts of the case as shown by the Author was that the
accused persons were arraigned before the Federal High Court on
four court charge of;
i. possession of two
(2) Nos Multi-choice Smart Cards being equipment/contrivances for
the purposes of illegally re-broadcasting transmission of the whole
or substantial parts of multi-choice programme;
ii. by way of
re-broadcasting and/or transmission through, Digital Communication
Network (Nig.) Ltd, selling or letting or hire or for the purpose
of trade or business, exposing or offering for sale or hire the
whole or substantial parts of multi-choice Nigeria Programs
(channels) in which copyright in broadcasts subsists in favour of
multi-choice Nigeria, without the consent or authorization of the
copyright owners.
iii. possession other than for
your private or domestic use of two (2) Nos Multi-choice Smart Card
Properties of Multi-choice Nigeria; and distribution in public for
commercial purposes by way of re-broad casting and or transmission
multi choice programs (channels) through Digital Entertainment
Television (DET) by way of rental, lease, hire, loan, similar
arrangement. The accused persons were convicted on counts (i), (ii)
and (iv) while (iii) was struck out[46].
The issues before the Court of Appeal were[47];
i. whether the
prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
ii. whether the learned
trial judge fully considered the defence of the Appellant and
iii. whether in sentencing the
Appellant, the learned trial judge exercised his discretion
judicially.
The Court of Appeal after going throughthe decision of the trial
court held as follows[48];
1. The Prosecution has
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
2. Section 18 (1)(c) of the
Copyright Act makes it an offence to possess the equipment for the
purpose of making infringing copy. In the instant case, the
decoders and smart cards were in fact used for illegal
rebroadcasting which is a reproduction of a broad cast and since it
is illegal, each rebroadcast is an infringing copy.
3. By the provisions of
section 1(1) of the Copyright Acts, broadcasts are eligible for
copyright and “broadcasts” means “sound or television broadcasts by
wireless telegraphy or wire or both or by satellite or cable
programmes and includes rebroadcast”.
4. It is one thing to have a
license to operate as a cable television station but it is entirely
different to re-broadcasts the programmes of another without their
knowledge consent or authorization. The provisions of Section 2(1)
of the National Broadcasting Commission Act, Cap NII, has nothing
to do with the copyright rather it is concerned with, among other
things, the receiving, processing and considering
applications of establishment, ownership or operation of radio and
television stations including cable television services, direct
Satellite broadcast and any other medium of broadcasting.
5. An appellate court will
not interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial court unless the
sentence is manifestly excessive, in the circumstance of the case
or is wrong in principle. The sentences imposed on the appellant
are not manifestly excessive having regard to the punishment
provided under section 18 of the Copyright Act, and neither are
they wrong in principle[49].
The above can be seen as the strongest details of the Author’s
report of the above named case, but it must be pointed out that the
weakest points in the same reports of the above named case can be
summarized as follows;
i. the ratio decidendi
of the case reported was not categorically headed nor mentioned as
usually done in NWLR.
ii. the identification of
the sub-heading; “Criminal Law and procedure” could not be found in
the report.
iii. the summary of the issues
were not highlighted separately by the Author.
iv. the statutes, Nigerian or
foreign cases referred to in the judgment were not listed
separately in the Law reports.
v. the identification of the
name of the reported case on the top part of each page were not
done.
vi. the font size of the wordings
are small and it should have been boldly written for easy reading
by those reading the Law reports.
6. PLATEAU
PUBLISHING CO LTD V CHIEF CHUKS ADOPHY[50]
The Author with respect to this case as reported by him improved
in his ways and manner of Law reporting as he provided the facts of
the case, perfectly summarized, he provided the decision of the
court also well summarized into six identifiable
paragraphs[51].
The Author also showed in the judgment the particulars of error
raised in the judgment. Additional value in the case reported is
that it was a Supreme Court decision. The case is also interesting
as reported not only because it a Supreme Court case but also
because it was a case decided on the merit after full trial.
The Author went further to give the facts of the case in a well
articulated and arranged manner and for ease of understanding the
facts are as follows;
i. The respondent (as
plaintiff in the High Court) had sued the appellant for
infringement of Copyright in his literary work title “After Tarka,
What next? Special tribute”.
ii. It as alleged that the
defendant reproduced the work in its newspaper under a fictitious
name.
iii. The trial court found for the
plaintiff and awarded general and additional damages.
The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed
and he then appealed to the Supreme Court, on the ground that the
award of N25,000 as general damages, was excessive for a
tribute which if it were published in the plaintiff’s name, it
would have fetched him a paltry “licence fee”.
The Supreme Court after reviewing the Court of Appeal decision,
held as follows;
1. An appeal Court should
not substitute what it considers to be reasonable damages, if there
is no appeal before that court against quantum of damages.[52]
2. In general any invasion
of a right of property gives a cause of action to the owner against
the person responsible for the invasion, whether it is intentional
or not. Consequently, innocence is no defence to an action for
infringement of Copyright or for the conversion or detention of an
infringing copy or a plate.[53]
3. Where it is proved or
admitted in an action for infringement that an infringement was
committed, but that at the time of infringement, the defendant was
not aware and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that
copyright subsisted in the work or other subject matter to which
the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages, but
is entitled to an account of profits whether any other relief is
granted or not.
4. The defence of innocent
infringement does not offer protection to a person who, knowing or
suspecting that copy right exists, makes a mistake as to the owner
of the copyright and under that mistaken belief obtains the
authorization to publish from a person who is not in fact the
owner.
5. In order to succeed in
the defence of innocent infringement, a defendant must allege and
prove that at the time of the infringement he was not aware and had
no reasonable grounds for suspecting that copyright subsisted in
the work in question.[54]
6. A defendant does not
establish that he had no reasonable grounds for suspecting the
existence of copyright by showing that he held an honest but
erroneous view of the law or by showing that he reasonably believed
that the work he had published was an original work, nor can be
plead that he had no reasonable grounds for suspecting
the existence of copyright in a work if he made no inquiry
whatsoever as to the source from which the work was
derived.[55]
The above analysis of the case reported in the Law reports shows
the important and one of the strongest points in this report.
However, it is also pertinent that we must critically assess the
way and manner this particular case was reported in the law report
by the author. The weakest points of the reported case are as
follows;
i. the ratio decidendi
of the case reported was not also categorically headed nor
mentioned in the Law report as it is usually done in NWLR.
ii. the identification of
the heading or sub-heading could not be found in the law
report.
iii. the summary of the issues
were not highlighted separately by the Author.
iv. the identification of the name
of the reported case in the top part of each page were not
done.
v. the font size of the
wordings are too small and should have been boldly written.
3.
EVALUATION
The Author in publishing this Law report can be said to achieve
his desired objective which is to make copyright Law reports to be
specialized work on copyright alone and not to mix same with other
areas of law.
The Author intention herein again is to make sure that both the
Lawyers, Judges, Students and Researchers have easy access to this
area of Law reports.
It is the intention of the Author too, to see that his Law
reports forms an important, if not the best Law reports in
Nigeria.
It is my opinion that this Law reports is a valuable
contribution to knowledge especially in the area of
copyrights.
SUMMARY
In the Law report as published, we have been able to have a
constructive assessment of the cases reported one after the other.
We have been able to see that the cases reported are six (6) in
total together with “index” as could be seen herein.
It is also a fact that we defined some important terms such
as;
i. Book review
ii. Copy rights
iii. Law reports
We equally went down history lane as to how Law reports
commenced by being published, which we said it was officially
published by the Justice Department from 1910 – 1956. We mentioned
lots of Law reports such as WACA, NLR,NWLR, FSC, All FWLR, FWLR,
there are private publications which are as follows;
i. Nigeria Copyright
Law Reports 2019 (NCLR) Vol. 1.
ii. Commercial Law Reports
of Nigeria (CLRN)
iii. Nigeria Criminal Reports
(NCR)
iv. Investments and Securities Law
Reports
v. Tax Law Reports.
We followed in details the requirements of a normal book review
which is expected to involve (1) Description (2) Critical analysis
(3) Evaluation (4) Summary (5) Recommendations (6) Conclusion (7)
Bibliography.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that
the Author should immediately constitute members of hisEditorial
Board which should have himself remaining as founder/Editor
in-Chief, there should be Deputy Editor In-Chief, Editor, Senior
Deputy Editor, Editorial Secretary, Deputy Editors, Senior
Assistant Editors, Assistant Editor and Assistant Editorial
Secretary and many Assistant Editors.
2. It is equally recommended
that the Law report should follow the pattern of the ways NWLR and
FWLR vis-à-vis other law reports were reported.
3. It is recommended that
more Supreme Court cases on Copyright issues should be reported
instead of having more Court of Appeal decisions on the subject
matter.
4. It is recommended that
more cases should be reported where full trial of cases took place
and not too much cases on the issue of preliminary objection even
though those cases on preliminary objections are also important for
our knowledge of the law on copyright.
5. It is recommended that
the Author should identify those cases reported and the subject
matters involved on the front cover page of the Law report because
the reader will immediately find the information about the Law
report in summary as itemized without even opening the Law
reports.
6. It is also recommended
that the Author should also produce electronic versions of the Law
report while the book format should also continue.
CONCLUSION
We accordingly recommend this important Law reports, the first
of its kind, for the reading public, most especially, the Judges,
Lawyers, academicians and researchers. The few areas requiring
corrections, as discovered in our review, are not new, when a book
such as Law reports is produced, as there will always be continuous
improvement when subsequent volumes are published, since, this is
the volume one (1) of the Law reports.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. INTERNET
MATERIALS
1. Tayo Oyetibo: The place
of Law Reporting in the 21st Century Legal research
and Practical see: http://issuecom[2] Accessed through
internet on 3/8/2019 at 2am.
2. Book Review: http://libguides.usc.edu[3] Accessed through
the internet on 4/8/2019 at 11:02pm
3. Copyright; http://study.com/academy/lesson[4] Accessed through
internet on 4/8/2019 at 11:23pm
4. LAW REPORT: https://www.idr.co.uk/blog/achive[5] Accessed through
internet on 4/8/2019 at 11:38pm
5. See; https://en.m.wikipedia.org[6] Accessed through
internet on 6/8/2019 at 8am.
6. Law
Reporting: www.nigeria.law.org[7] Accessed through
internet on 6/8/2019 at 10:15am.
7. See; https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/Law.criminology/research/cir/pastedition/#v37-2006[8] Accessed on
6/8/2019 through the internet at 8pm
8. See; https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/a-dictionary
of legislative
drafting-and-lawmaking-terms/isbn/978-3-659-19233-3[9] Accessed on
6/8/2019 through the internet at 8:30pm.
10. Intellectual property:
See https://pitt.libguides.com[10]; Accessed through the
internet on 6/8/2019 at 9pm
11. The doctrine of judicial precedent
involves an application of the principle of stare decisis. In
practice, this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the
legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. This
provides consistency and predictability in the Law.
See; https://www.lawteacher.net.judicial[11] Accessed through
the internet on 6/8/2019 at 10:05pm.
12. Book; https://www.collinsdictionary.com[12] Accessed through
the internet on 7/8/2019 at 4pm
2. CASE
LAWS
1. MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY
OF NIGERIA LTD/GTE V COMPACT DISC TECHNOLOGY LTD & ORS; The
case is a Supreme Court decision decided on Friday,
14th December, 2018 in Appeal No: SC/425/2010
2. NIGERIAN COPYRIGHT
COMMISSION & ORS V MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA LIMITED
IG.TE & ORS; The case is a Court of Appeal Case of 19th day of
October, 2016 of Appeal Number, CA/L/350/2013
3. PERFORMING AND MECHANICAL
RIGHT SOCIETY LTD/GTE V SKYE BANK PLC & ORS; The case is a
Court of Appeal decision decided on Wednesday, the
27th day of October, 2017 in Appeal No:
CA/L/846/2019.
4. VISAFONE COMMUNICATIONS
LTD V MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA LTD/GTE & ANOR; The
case is a Court of Appeal decision decided on Friday, the
30th day of November, 2018 in Appeal No:
CA/L/387/2012
5. UBI BASSEY ENO V NIGERIAN
COPYRIGHT COMMISSION; The case is a Court of Appeal decision
decided on Friday, the 23rd day of April, 2009 in
Appeal No: CA/C/46/2007
6. PLATEAU PUBLISHING CO LTD
V CHIEF CHUKS ADOPHY; The case is a Supreme Court, No Suit number,
and no date of Judgment.
3.
STATUTES
1. Section 1(1) of the
Copyright Act LFN 2004
2. Section 2 (a) and (b) of
the Copyright Act LFN 2004
3. Section 2 (3) and (4) of
the Copyright Act LFN 2004
4. Sections 15A, 32 (B) (2),
(4), (5) and 6 of the copy rights Act LFN
4.
BOOKS/JOURNALS/PAPER PRESENTATION
1. Hon
Justice Emmanuel Ayoola; Prologue: Emergence of Law reporting in
Nigeria as published by “The National Mirror” of 26/8/2013.
2. Bankole Sodipo; Copyright
law, principles, practice & procedure; 2nd Edition 2017
published by Swan Publishing Lagos; Page 235.
3. Jide Olakanmi;
Intellectual Property; Cases and Materials Copyright e.t.c; 1st
Edition 2009 page 247. 4. F.O
Babafemi: Intellectual Property: The Law and Practice of Copyright,
e.t.c, in Nigeria: 1st Edition Published by Justinian Books Ltd
Page 102.
[1] Tayo Oyetibo: The place of Law
Reporting in the 21st Century Legal research and
Practical see: http://issuecom[13] Accessed through
internet on 3/8/2019 at 2am.
[2] Hon Justice Emmanuel Ayoola; Prologue:
Emergence of Law reporting in Nigeria as published by “The National
Mirror” of 26/8/2013.
[3] We must say that we are passionate
about the present Law report as there exist no specialized Law
reports on the specialized area of copyrights and that was why it
was listed as number one among the law reports classified as
specialized area of Law.
[4] Book Review: http://libguides.usc.edu[14] Accessed through
the internet on 4/8/2019 at 11:02pm
[5] Ibid
[6] Copyright; http://study.com/academy/lesson[15] Accessed through
internet on 4/8/2019 at 11:23pm
[7] Copyright Act chapter C28 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria, LFN 2004
[8] Section 1(1) of the Copyright Act LFN
2004
[9] Section 2 (a) and (b) of the
Copyright Act LFN 2004
[10] Section 2 (3) and (4) of the
Copyright Act LFN 2004
[11] LAW REPORT: https://www.idr.co.uk/blog/achive[16] Accessed through
internet on 4/8/2019 at 11:38pm
[12] See; https://en.m.wikipedia.org[17] Accessed through
internet on 6/8/2019 at 8am.
[13] Law Reporting: www.nigeria.law.org[18] Accessed through
internet on 6/8/2019 at 10:15am.
[14] The Author had to produce this Law
report in order to contribute his own quota to the development of
Copyright and Law reports in Nigeria.
[15] It is necessary to have knowledge of
the founder of the said Law report.
[16] See; https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/Law.criminology/research/cir/pastedition/#v37-2006[19] Accessed on
6/8/2019 through the internet at 8pm
[17] See; https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/a-dictionary
of legislative
drafting-and-lawmaking-terms/isbn/978-3-659-19233-3[20] Accessed on
6/8/2019 through the internet at 8:30pm.
[18] It is important to note
that the experience of the Author is teaching, writing of articles,
and practice as a Lawyer vis-à-vis conferences and seminars
attended has shown that he is a man of many excellent qualities
which if we continue to describe him, it may take substantial part
of this review and may not allow us to deal with the subject matter
at hand.
[19] This Law reports has
come up at a better time for important usages.
[20] Intellectual property:
See https://pitt.libguides.com[21] accessed through
internet on 6/8/2019 at 9pm
[21] We must take note that even when we
talk about sources of our Laws in Nigeria, we usually mention
judicial precedents and the most important place to see judicial
precedents is to look at the Law reports which this one is part
of.
[22] A person who will comment on
cases/judgments must have access to them first.
[23] The doctrine of judicial precedent
involves an application of the principle of stare decisis. In
practice, this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the
legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. This
provides consistency and predictability in the Law.
See; https://www.lawteacher.net.judicial[22] Accessed through
the internet on 6/8/2019 at 10:05pm.
[24] The case was a Supreme Court decision
decided on Friday, 14th December, 2018 in Appeal
No: SC/425/2010
[25] The case is a Court of Appeal
decision decided on Wednesday, the 19th day of
October, 2016 in Appeal No: CA/L/350/2013.
[26] The case is a Court of Appeal
decision decided on Friday, the 27th day of
October, 2017 in Appeal No: CA/L/846/2009
[27] The case is a Court of Appeal
decision decided on Friday, the 30th day of
November, 2018 in Appeal No: CA/L/387/2012
[28] The case is a Court of Appeal
decision decided on 23/4/2009 in Appeal No: CA/C/46/2007
[29] The case is a Supreme Court
decision.
[30] Book; https://www.collinsdictionary.com[23] Accessed through
the internet on 7/8/2019 at 4pm
[31] Ibid
[32] This is the first case reported in
the law reports we have critically looked at the way the law
reports was actually reported
[33] The court had to deal with the issue
of sections 15A, 32 (B) (2), (4), (5) and 6 of the copy right Act
LFN
[34] This is the second case reported in
this law report. The analysis of what the case above meant to the
legal profession cannot be over emphasized.
[35] The rules of interpretation of
statute is to be utilized here, and was actually utilized in area
of importance and necessity.
[36] This is third case which we have
critically examined as being important area of law, requiring
adequate appreciation of the law.
[37] See pages 64 and 65 of the Law
Reports
[38] The issue of jurisdiction and how it
was by challenged was discussed by; Bankole Sodipo; Copyright law,
principles, practice & procedure; 2nd Edition 2017 published by
Swan Publishing Lagos; Page 235.
[39] See page 79 of the Law report
[40] This is the fourth case reported in
the Law reports, which we critically looked at the way it was
reported.
[41] This can be seen on page 89 of the
Law report.
[42] This can also be seen on page 90 of
the Law report
[43] See page 108 of the Law Report
[44] See page 98 of the Law Report
[45] This was the Fifth case that was
reported in the Law report which we critically examined the way and
manner it was reported.
[46] See page 109 of the Law reports
[47] See page 110 of the Law reports
[48] See page 110 of the Law reports
[49] See page 111 of the Law reports.
[50] This is the sixth and last case
reported in this Law report. We had to critically scrutinize the
ways and manner the case was reported.
[51] See pages 131 – 132 of the Law
report.
[52] See page 131 of the Law reports
[53] See page 132 of the Law reports
[54] See page 132 of the Law reports.
[55] See Jide Olakanmi; Intellectual
Property; Cases and Materials Copyright e.t.c; 1st Edition 2009 pg
247 and F.O Babafemi: Intellectual Property: The Law and Practice
of Copyright, e.t.c, in Nigeria: 1st Edition Published by Justinian
Books Ltd Page 102.
Subscribe ToNairalaw News!
References
- ^
[email protected]
(nairalaw.com) - ^
http://issuecom
(issuecom) - ^
http://libguides.usc.edu
(libguides.usc.edu) - ^
http://study.com/academy/lesson
(study.com) - ^
https://www.idr.co.uk/blog/achive
(www.idr.co.uk) - ^
https://en.m.wikipedia.org
(en.m.wikipedia.org) - ^
www.nigeria.law.org
(www.nigeria.law.org) - ^
https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/Law.criminology/research/cir/pastedition/#v37-2006
(www.aber.ac.uk) - ^
https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/a-dictionary
of legislative
drafting-and-lawmaking-terms/isbn/978-3-659-19233-3
(www.morebooks.de) - ^
https://pitt.libguides.com
(pitt.libguides.com) - ^
https://www.lawteacher.net.judicial
(www.lawteacher.net.judicial) - ^
https://www.collinsdictionary.com
(www.collinsdictionary.com) - ^
http://issuecom
(issuecom) - ^
http://libguides.usc.edu
(libguides.usc.edu) - ^
http://study.com/academy/lesson
(study.com) - ^
https://www.idr.co.uk/blog/achive
(www.idr.co.uk) - ^
https://en.m.wikipedia.org
(en.m.wikipedia.org) - ^
www.nigeria.law.org
(www.nigeria.law.org) - ^
https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/Law.criminology/research/cir/pastedition/#v37-2006
(www.aber.ac.uk) - ^
https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/a-dictionary
of legislative
drafting-and-lawmaking-terms/isbn/978-3-659-19233-3
(www.morebooks.de) - ^
https://pitt.libguides.com
(pitt.libguides.com) - ^
https://www.lawteacher.net.judicial
(www.lawteacher.net.judicial) - ^
https://www.collinsdictionary.com
(www.collinsdictionary.com)