Bedding v. Minister (Case 330)

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA.
SUIT NO. FHC/ABJ/CS/330/2016.

BETWEEN:
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED…………………………………..….….PLAINTIFF
AND
1. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER, FEDERAL MINISTRY

OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT
2. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS, FEDERAL ……DEFENDANTS
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION (INEC)
4. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF THE FEDERATION AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW TO THE 3RD

DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 13TH JUNE, 2016 BUT FILED ON 21ST
JUNE, 2016.
INTRODUCTION:
The Plaintiff adopts its introduction and issues for determination as contained in
its original written address in arguing the Originating Summons as part of its
introduction and issues for determination in this Reply on Points of Law to the
3rd Defendant’s Written Address in support of their Counter Affidavit dated 13th
June, 2016 but filed on 21st June, 2016.
ARGUMENT:
On whether the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the 1 st Schedule

to the Patent and Designs Act are in conflict with the provisions of Section
44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Sections 6 and 25 of the
Patents and Designs Act.
At pages 5 – 6 of the 3rd Defendant’s written address, the 3rd Defendant

contends that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants acted in compliance with the law
when they relied on the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II to
the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act to authorize the 3rd
Defendant and/or any other person(s) to use the Plaintiff’s patented products
free of charge and without any hindrance.
1
With due respect to the 3rd Defendant, that argument is most untenable. This is
because what the 1st Defendant has succeeded in doing is to allow the 3 rd
Defendant to engage the services of other private contractors to purchase, vend,
sell, use and supply the Plaintiff’s patented products to the 3 rd Defendant for
commercial gains without any compensation paid to the Plaintiff for benefitting
from the Plaintiff’s patented products. This is obviously contrary to the
provisions of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution and sections 6 and 25 of
the Patents and Designs Act, which provide for the adequate compensation of
the Plaintiff in a situation like this where the Plaintiff’s patented products are
being put to use by other person(s).
It is our humble submission that a combined construction and interpretation of

the provisions of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution and sections 6 and 25 of
the Patents and Designs Act (already reproduced in the Plaintiff’s original
written address) clearly shows that the Plaintiff has an exclusive patent right in
and over the said patents under reference. This exclusive patent right of the
Plaintiff cannot be divested from the Plaintiff by the 1 st Defendant at will and
without the commensurate and adequate compensation to that effect.
In the case of NDIC V. OKEM ENTERPRISES LTD (2004) 4 SC (PT. II)

PAGE 77 AT PAGES 127-128 thereof, the Supreme Court per Kalgo JSC held
thus:
‘‘It is trite law that the general principles of interpretation of

statutes is that where the words of the statutes are clear and
unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary
meaning unless it would be absurd to do so having regards to the
nature and circumstances of the case. See Awolowo v. Shagari
(1979) 6-9 SC 51; Adejumo v. Governor of Lagos State (1972) 3 SC
45; AG Bendel State v. AG Federation (1981) 10 SC 1; Owena Bank
v. NSE Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 1.’’ (Underlining supplied for
emphasis.)
It is therefore our humble submission that, having regards to the nature and
circumstances of this case, it will be absurd for this Honourable Court to hold
that by the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II to the First
Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act, (which are inferior to the substantive
provisions of Sections 6, 25 and 26 of the Patents and Designs Act), the 1st
Defendant can divest the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s exclusive patented rights
without compensating the Plaintiff to that effect. This is contrary to the
provisions of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and
Sections 6 and 25 of the Patents and Designs Act.
2
Therefore, where there is a conflict between the clear provisions of a
substantive law and the provisions of the schedule (which is a mere appendage)
to the substantive law, it will be absurd to construe or hold that the provisions of
the schedule to the substantive law are superior to the provisions of the
substantive law itself. This will certainly lead to absurdity, ambiguity and
injustice. We urge this Honourable Court to discountenance the authority of
SCHRODER V. MAJOR (1989) 2 NWLR (PT. 101) PAGE 1 AT PAGE 3
cited by the 3rd Defendant in this regard.
It is our further submission that, in the instant case where the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd
Defendants obviously acted contrary to the clear provisions of Section 44 of the
1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Sections 6 and 25 of the Patents and
Designs Act, the 3rd Defendant cannot seek refuge or protection under the
inferior provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II to the First
Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act.
On the Supremacy of the provisions of Section 25 of the Patent and Designs

Act to the provisions of Section 11 of the Patent and Designs Act:
Now, the Defendants are contending that the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16
and 17 of Part II to the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act have
equal force of law with the substantive provision of Section 25 of the Patent
and Designs Act. Therefore, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants can rely on the
provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II to the First Schedule to
the Patent and Designs Act to exempt the Defendants from paying royalties by
way of compensation to the Plaintiff for the use of the Plaintiff’s exclusive
patented products/process.
Interestingly, by virtue of the provision of Section 25 of the Patent and

Designs Act, the draftsman gave a contrary intention with regard to the issue of
compensation in the event of compulsory acquisition of a patentee’s exclusive
patent and designs right when he provides thus:
‘‘25 (1)The rights of a patentee or design owner are infringed if

another person, without the licence of the patentee or design
owner, does or causes the doing of any act which that other
person is precluded from doing under section 6 or 9 of this
Act, as the case may be.
(2) An infringement of the rights of a patentee or design owner

shall be actionable at the suit of the patentee or design owner
in question; and in any action for such an infringement all
such relief by way of damages, injunction, accounts or
3
otherwise shall be available to the plaintiff as is available in
any corresponding proceedings in respect of the infringement
of other proprietary rights.(Underlining supplied for
emphasis.)
Subsequently, Paragraph 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent

and Designs Act provide thus:
‘‘Paragraphs 15 and 16 of this Schedule shall have effect so as to

exempt-
(a) the Government;
(b) any person authorized under those paragraphs;
(c) any supplier of the Government or of any such person; and
(d) any agent of any such supplier.
From liability for the infringement of any patent relating to the
relevant article or invention and from liability to make any payment to
the patentee by way of royalty or otherwise.’’ (Underlining supplied for
emphasis.)
From the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that the provisions of Paragraphs 15,
16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act are
mere appendages contained in the Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act.
They are therefore inferior to the substantive provisions of Section 25 of the
Patents and Designs Act, which provides for the payment of damages to a
bona fide patentee whose patented product/process has been infringed.
In the case of TIMOTHY AONDOAKAA V. EMMANUEL AJO & 5 ORS.

(1999) 5 NWLR (PT. 602) C.A. PAGE 206 AT PAGE 225, PARAS. C-D;
RATIO 14 thereof, the Court of Appeal in rendering inferior the legal
effect of the provisions of the Schedule to a statute to the substantive
provisions the same statute, held thus:
‘‘The provisions in a schedule, being only procedural, confer no

right and cannot derogate from rights created by the statute
itself. In the instant case, the fact that the relief for fresh election
was not included in the appellant’s petition in line with
paragraph 5 to Decree No. 36 of 1998 does not prevent the
tribunal from exercising the mandatory powers conferred on it
by the main Decree to make an order for fresh election. [Gbe v.
Esewe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 89) 435 referred to]’’
It is therefore our humble submission that the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16

and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act, being
4
only procedural, confer no right on the Defendants to use the Plaintiff’s
exclusively patented products without the prior license and authorization of the
Plaintiff to that effect; and without the Defendants paying royalties by way of
compensation to the Plaintiff to that effect. Thus, the provisions of Paragraphs
15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act
and cannot derogate from rights created by the clear and substantive provisions
of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Sections 6 and 25
of the Patents and Designs Act. Theses are the substantive statutes themselves
that that provide for the protection of the exclusive rights of the Plaintiff as the
bona fide patentee of the said patented products/process and the payment of the
appropriate and adequate compensation to the Plaintiff in the even of any
infringement of the Plaintiff’s patented products.
Consequently, Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to

the Patent and Designs Act are absurd and do not confer any legal right and
cannot derogate from the compensatory rights created by the substantive
provisions of Section 25 of the Patent and Designs Act itself. This right
inures in favour of the Plaintiff. We rely on the celebrated cases of TIMOTHY
AONDOAKAA V. EMMANUEL AJO & 5 ORS. (1999) 5 NWLR (PT. 602)
C.A. PAGE 206 AT PAGE 225, PARAS. C-D; RATIO 14 thereof;
ACTION CONGRESS V. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (PT. 1048) PAGE 220
S.C.; AWUSE V. ODILI (2004) 8 NWLR (PT. 876) PAGE 36 C.A and Gbe
v. Esewe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 89) 435.
Even where the 1st Defendant does any act which tends to deprive a bona fide
patentee (such as the Plaintiff herein) of his right to exclusively enjoy his
patented rights, the provisions of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As
Amended) and Section 25(1) and (2) of the Patent and Designs Act, enjoin
the 1st Defendant to adequately compensate the patentee for divesting him of his
proprietary rights in and over such patented products. We refer your Lordship to
the case of AMALE V. SOKOTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1012) 5
NWLR (PT. 1292) S. C. PAGE 181 AT PAGES 201, PARAS. B-E, 205-206,
PARAS. E-B; RATIO 4 thereof.
Therefore, by virtue of the provision of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution

(As Amended) the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the
First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act (by which the 1st Defendant
issued the Gazette authorizing the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and other persons to
vend, purchase and use the Plaintiff’s patented products without the Plaintiff’s
prior license, authorization and compensation by the Defendants to that effect)
are null and void to the extent of their inconsistency with the provisions of
Sections 1(1) and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) in that regard.
We rely on the celebrated case of LAFIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT V.
5
GOVERNOR, NASARAWA STATE (1012) 17 NWLR (PT. 1328) S. C.
PAGE 94 AT PAGE 142, PARAS. A-C; RATIO 7 thereof.
We urge this Honourable Court to so hold.
On whether the authority of MOHAMMED V. OLAWUNMI (1993) 4

NWLR (PT. 287) S.C. PAGE 254 AT PAGE 278, PARAS. D-E & PAGE
281, PARAS. E-H cited by the 3 rd Defendant precludes this Honourable
Court from giving effect to the valid and subsisting judgments of this
Honourable Court.
At pages 6 – 7 of the 3rd Defendant’s written address, the 3rd Defendant

contends that the two judgments of this Honourable Court in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE
REGISTRAR OF PATENTS, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE &
INDUSTRY & ORS; and Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V.
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5
ORS. were not attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons.
The 3rd Defendant also contends that the said two judgments are subject of
appeal. Therefore, on the authority of MOHAMMED V. OLAWUNMI (1993)
4 NWLR (PT. 287) S.C. PAGE 254 AT PAGE 278, PARAS. D-E & PAGE
281, PARAS. E-H thereof, this Honourable Court should not make any
pronouncement that will affect the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
It is our humble submission that, with due respect to the 3rd Defendant, this
argument of the 3rd Defendant is misleading and begging the point. This is so
because in the first pace, it is abundantly clear from the documents attached to
the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons that the judgment in Suit
No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE
INDUSTRY & ORS. delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 2012 is
attached to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons as EXHIBIT
‘‘3’’. The judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING
HOLDINGS LTD. V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS. delivered on Tuesday, the 28th day of
January, 2014 is also attached to the affidavit in support of the Originating
Summons as EXHIBIT ‘‘6’’.
It would be recalled that it is by these two separate judgments of this

Honourable Court that this Honourable Court re-affirmed the exclusive Patent
Rights and Designs of the Plaintiff over the Transparent Ballot Box (TBB),
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address
6
Systems Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of Coded Metal Plate).
These are some of the Patents and Designs Rights which the Defendants
purportedly revoked/nullified. The purported revocation/nullification of the said
adjudged Patents and Designs Rights of the Plaintiff was a grand ploy designed
by the Defendants to circumvent or avoid their payment of the adjudged sum of
over ₦ 17, 000, 000, 000.00 (Seventeen Billion Naira Only) being the royalties
accruable and payable to the Plaintiff by the Defendants. The said judgments
are still valid and subsisting till date.
It is our humble submission that the position of the law is well-settled that a
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such as this Honourable Court,
remains valid and subsisting until it is set aside. As at today, there is no order of
any court which has set aside the two judgments of this Honourable Court.
Therefore, this Honourable Court can give effect to the two valid and subsisting
judgments of this Honourable Court which have pronounced the Plaintiff as the
bona fide patentee of the said Patents and Designs forming the subject matter of
the said judgments.
It is our further submission that the authority of MOHAMMED V.

OLAWUNMI (1993) 4 NWLR (PT. 287) S.C. PAGE 254 AT PAGE 278,
PARAS. D-E & PAGE 281, PARAS. E-H thereof cited by the 3rd Defendant
does not in any way preclude this Honourable Court from giving effect to the
valid and subsisting judgments of this Honourable Court. It is even the
Defendants (particularly the 3rd Defendant) who took steps towards the
purported revocation/nullification of the Plaintiff’s Patents and Designs Rights
in defiance of the valid and subsisting judgments of the court as well as the
appeals filed by them that are even guilty of the authority of MOHAMMED V.
OLAWUNMI (1993) 4 NWLR (PT. 287) S.C. PAGE 254 AT PAGE 278,
PARAS. D-E & PAGE 281, PARAS. E-H thereof.
This is particularly so when the Defendants, particularly the 3 rd Defendant, (who

are the appellants in the two appeals) have continued to contemptuously use the
Plaintiff’ said patented products/process for the conduct of various elections all
over the country without the prior consent and authorization of the Plaintiff.
They also do this in defiance of the two valid and subsisting judgments and
thereby also undermining the judicial powers of this Honourable Court as well
as the judicial powers of the Court of Appeal.
Secondly, the subject-matter of this action is for this Honourable Court to

determine whether the Defendants can, by the said Gazette, unilaterally
revoke/cancel the Patents and Designs Rights in and over the said Patents and
Designs listed in the Gazette without notifying and compensating the Plaintiff to
that effect. This has nothing to do with the pending appeals which deal with the
7
earlier infringement of the Plaintiff’s patented products before the subsequent
and purported revocation of the said Patents and Designs.
Thus, the authority of MOHAMMED V. OLAWUNMI (1993) 4 NWLR (PT.

287) S.C. PAGE 254 AT PAGE 278, PARAS. D-E & PAGE 281, PARAS.
E-H thereof, cited by the 3rd Defendant is not applicable to the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the instant case.
On whether the purported revocation of the Plaintiff’s Patents and Designs

Rights over the said patented products listed in the said Gazette by the 1 st
Defendant was right in law:
In arguing issue four (4), the 3rd Defendant, at pages 7 – 12 of its written
address in support of its Counter Affidavit in opposing the Originating
Summons, simply reproduced the provisions of Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and
251 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and sections 6 and 25 of the
Patents and Designs Act. Thereafter, the 3rd Defendant simply argued that
there is nothing in those provisions of the laws that prevents the 1st Defendant
from exercising his powers conferred him by provisions of the 1 st Schedule to
the Patents and Designs Act. The 3rd Defendant then cited the case of CAC V.
DAVIS (2006) LPELR-11411 (CA) on the effect of the law on the general and
specific provisions of a statute.
It is our humble submission that this argument of the 3 rd Defendant has been
misplaced. From the totality of the facts giving rise to this case, it is clear that
the Plaintiff’s right to fair hearing in respect of the revocation of her exclusive
patented rights has been flagrantly abuse d and breached by the Defendants.
There is the denial of the Plaintiff’s right to fair hearing as the Plaintiff was not
in any way notified by the 1st Defendant about the 1st Defendant’s intention to
revoke the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in and over her patented products before
the 1st Defendant brazenly and suddenly revoked the said patented rights of the
Plaintiff. This sudden revocation is contained in EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’, which is the
said Gazette forming the subject matter of this action.
It is interesting to note that one of the complaints of the Plaintiff against the 1 st
Defendant is that the Plaintiff was not in any way notified by the 1 st Defendant
about the 1st Defendant’s intention to revoke the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in
and over her patented products before the 1st Defendant brazenly and suddenly
revoked the said patented rights of the Plaintiff. The 1 st Defendant did not
dispute this glaring fact. It is trite law that what is admitted need no further
proof. Therefore, the 1st Defendant, not having denied this obvious fact, it is no
longer necessary for the Plaintiff to be called upon to prove same. This being
the case, it therefore means that the authority of CAC V. DAVIS (2006)
8
LPELR-11411 (CA) cited by the 3rd Defendant on the effect of the law on the
general and specific provisions of a statute, is not applicable to the instant case.
We urge this Honourable Court to so hold and discountenance it.
On whether the 1st , 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ acts of issuing the Gazette to
authorize any person to purchase, make, exercise or vend the Plaintiff’s
exclusively patented products without compensation/royalty amounts to
revocation of the Plaintiffs’ patents under reference:
It is the contention of the 1st Defendant that the 1st Defendant did not revoke the
said Patents and Designs of the Plaintiffs under reference. It is its argument that
what the 1st Defendant did was to exempt the 3rd Defendant from the Plaintiff’s
right of exclusivity over the said patented products.
Interestingly, by contents of EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ and the provisions of Paragraphs

15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act,
the 1st Defendant has authorized ‘any person’ (including but not limited to, the
3rd Defendant) to purchase, make, exercise or vend any of the Plaintiff’s
patented products/articles or invention without paying any compensation by way
of royalty to the Plaintiff.
Now, EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ is the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No.
18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled –
USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
(INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER,
2014. By the content of the said Gazette, the 1 st Defendant has opened a flood
gate of all sorts of infringement of the Plaintiff’s exclusive and hard-earned
patented products by the 3rd Defendant and other contractors. This is because the
3rd Defendant is now relying on EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ to award the contracts for the
supply of the Plaintiff’s exclusive and patented products such as Transparent
Ballot Boxes (TBB), Collapsible Polling Booths (Voting Cubicles) etc to
contractors who will now supply the said products for commercial gains. This is
what the 3rd Defendant is now using to conduct various elections all over the
country.
Therefore, EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ has created a situation where the contractors engaged
by the 3rd Defendant to supply the patented products, will then be feeding fat on
the Plaintiff’s exclusive and patented products with impunity while the 1 st and
2nd Defendants continue to collect the necessary annual fees for the renewal of
the Plaintiff’s exclusive and patented license from the Plaintiff. This ought not to
be the case because it is trite that the law, such as the Gazette, cannot be used as
an instrument of fraud. This is certainly not the intendment of the law makers.
9
Obviously, by EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ the Defendants purport to have divested the
Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over the Patents and
Designs listed in the said Official Gazette pursuant to the provisions of
Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and
Designs Act; without any notice to the Plaintiff to that effect and without
compensating the Plaintiff for divesting it of its exclusive Patents and Designs
Rights. We refer your Lordship to EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’.
We also respectfully adopt the totality of our arguments on these points as

contained in the Plaintiff’s original written address in arguing the Originating
Summons. Thus, we respectfully and strongly urge this Honourable Court to so
hold and resolve all the issues in favour of the Plaintiff.
Conclusively, we urge this Honourable Court to resolve all the issues in favour
of the Plaintiff and declare the said Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II to the
First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act null and void to that extent for
being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution
(As Amended).
CONCLUSION:
In the final analysis, we therefore urge this Honourable Court to grant the reliefs being
sought by the Plaintiff in this case on the strength of all the facts, documentary
evidence and authorities cited before Your Lordship for the reasons earlier adduced in
the written address in arguing the main Originating Summons, amongst others.
DATED this 4th day of July, 2016.

..……………………………
ASSAM E. ASSAM, SAN,
CHIEF KARINA TUNYAN, SAN,
OLUSOJI TOKI, LL.M.,
JOHN OKORIKO ESQ.,
TOKILEGAL
PLAINTIFF’S SOLICITORS
SUITE 2.08 WILLANDS PLAZA
HERBERT MACAULAY WAY
WUSE ZONE 4,
ABUJA
sojitoki@yahoo.co.uk
08033282935,
08028323432.
10
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. THE 1ST DEFENDANT,

THE HONOURABLE MINISTER, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY,
TRADE AND INVESTMENT,
OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.
2. THE 2ND DEFENDANT,

A. U. IDRIS ESQ.,
2ND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL,
C/O COMMERCIAL LAW DEPARTMENT,
OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.
3. THE 3RD DEFENDANT,

C/O ITS COUNSEL,
ASIWAJU ADEGBOYEGA S. AWOMOLO SAN, FCIArb. FNIALS,
AB MAHMUD SAN,
DR. ONYECHI IKPEAZU SAN,
HASSAN LIMAN SANFCIArb OON,
AHMED RAJI SAN, FCIArb (UK)
CHIEF (MRS) V. O. AWOMOLO SAN FCIArb,
Eyitayo Fatogun,
ADEGBOYEGA AWOMOLO & ASSOCIATES,
VICTORIA COURT, 444 CRESCENT,
OFF 441 CRESCENT,
CITEC VILLAS,
GWARINPA, ABUJA.
08035909719
Awomoloandassociates_abuja@yahoo.com
4. THE 4TH DEFENDANT,

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE)
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,
SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT,
ABUJA.
11
HOLDEN AT ABUJA.

BETWEEN:
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED….……………….….PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
AND
5. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF

6. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS, FEDERAL
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT ..DEFENDANTS
COMMISSION (INEC)
….APPLICANT
8. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ..RESPONDENT
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO THE 3RD DEFENDANT/APPLICANT’S

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO STRIKE OUT THIS SUIT
DATED 20TH JUNE, 2016 BUT FILED ON 21ST JUNE, 2016.
I, CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE, NPOM, FSM. Adult, Male,

Christian, Nigerian Citizen, of No. 55, Adeniyi Jones Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos
State of Nigeria do hereby make oath and swear by the Almighty God that
the evidence I shall give in this case shall be truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth and state as follows that:
1. I am the Group Executive Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of the

Plaintiff herein, by virtue of which fact I am very conversant with the
facts I hereto depose as I am directly in charge of all the general
activities of the Plaintiff.
2. I have the consent and authority of the Plaintiff to depose to this

Counter Affidavit.
3. In response to paragraph 3 of the Applicant’s affidavit in support of the

motion, I state that this suit is questioning the powers of the
Respondents to unilaterally and indiscriminately revoke/nullify the
Plaintiff’s patents and designs without giving any notice of the
purported revocation of the Patents and Designs rights to the Plaintiff.
12
4. In response to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Applicant’s affidavit in
support of the motion, I state that by an Amended Statement of Claim
dated and filed the 7th day of June, 2013, the Plaintiff instituted Suit
No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V.
ORS., against the 3rd and 4th Defendants (amongst other Defendants
therein). By the said suit, the Plaintiff claimed both declaratory and
monetary reliefs against the Defendants therein as the exclusive and
bona fide owner of the Patent Rights No. RP 16642 and Copyrights
Designs No. RD 13841 in and over Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) and Patent Rights No. RP
NG/P/2010/202-Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS)
(Embedded with the Concept of the Coded Metal Plate); the process
and application of which was used by the 3 rd Defendant for the
production of the Voter’s Register for the 2011 general election,
amongst other elections. This was done by the 3rd Defendant without
the prior license, consent and authorization of the Plaintiff to that
effect.

motion, I state that by a well-considered Judgment delivered on
Tuesday, 28th January, 2014, this Honourable Court entered
judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the following terms, inter alia:
‘‘(3) That an order is being made that the Plaintiff is entitled to 50%
of the total contract sum of ₦34, 517.640,000.00 (Thirty Four
Billion, Five Hundred and Seventeen Million, Six Hundred and
Forty Thousand Naira Only), which is ₦17, 258, 820,000.00
(Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty Eight Million, Eight
Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only) being the
minimum reasonable royalty accruable to the Plaintiff for the
production, procurement, supply, acquisition, importation,
procurement, purchase, receipt, sale, of the Direct Data
Capturing Machines, Laptops and/or any other equipment
ancillary to, or associated with the process and application of
the said products respectively for the registration of voters
and/or the collation/compilation and production of the
Voter’s Register for the 2011 general elections or any other
elections by the Defendants (particularly the 4 th – 6th
Defendants) without first seeking and obtaining the written
license, consent and authority of the Plaintiff who is the bona
fide patentee of the Patent and Designs Rights in and over the
process and application of the said products respectively to
produce the Voter’s Register. A Certified True Copy of the
Enrolled Judgment Order of the Federal High Court delivered
on Tuesday, 28th January, 2014 and duly served on the
Defendants is hereto attached and marked as EXHIBIT ‘‘6’’.
13
motion, I maintain that the judgment in Suit No.
ORS.; which gave rise to Appeals Nos. CA/A/132/2014 – ZINOX
TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VS BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED & 5
ORS. and CA/A/132A/2014 – INEC & ANOR. VS. BEDDING
HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS., relates to the infringement of the
Plaintiff’s Patents and Designs Rights in and over the Proof of Address
System Scheme (PASS) embedded with the concept of Coded Metal
Plates and the Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB).
7. In further response to paragraph 7 of the Applicant’s affidavit in

support of the motion, I aver that the parties, subject matter and reliefs
being sought in the instant case are radically different from the parties,
subject matter and reliefs in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 –
BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS.; which gave rise to
Appeals Nos. CA/A/132/2014 – ZINOX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
VS BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED & 5 ORS. and CA/A/132A/2014
– INEC & ANOR. VS. BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS.
8. In further response to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Applicant’s affidavit

in support of the motion, I state that on the strength of the said
Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101,
Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled –
2014, the 3rd Defendant in particular and other Defendants have been
continuously and continually using the Plaintiff’s patented rights and
designs for their activities without the prior consent, authority and/or
license of the Plaintiff to that effect. Some of the patents and Designs
issued to the Plaintiff by the 1st and 2nd Defendants which the 3rd
Defendant and others have been continuously using include, but not
limited to the following Patents and Designs:
(i) RP No. 10511, for Collapsible Steel Frame Structures;

(ii) RP No. 12994, for Transparent Ballot Boxes;
(iii) RP No. 16642, for Electronic Collapsible Ballot Boxes;
(iv) NG/P/2010/202, for Proof of Address System Scheme (PASS);
(v) RD No. 13841, for Electronic Collapsible Ballot Boxes;
(vi) RD No. 5946, for Transparent Ballot Boxes;
(vii) RD. No. 3962, for Collapsible Steel Frame Structures;
9. I know as a fact that on the strength of the said Federal Republic of

Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24
dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR
SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014, the 3rd Defendant on the
14
20th of February, 2016 conducted a re-run election in Benue South
Senatorial District and made use of the Plaintiff’s patented transparent
ballot boxes.
28th of August, 2015 made a publication in “The Nation” newspaper at
page 18 announcing that it would make use of the Plaintiff’s patented
Continuous Voter Registration, Permanent Voter Cards and Smart
Card Reader (among others) contrary the judgment in Exhibit “6” .
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014, the Peoples Democratic
Party in May, 2016 conducted Congresses in Jigawa, Gombe, Ekiti,
Ogun, Kebbi, Niger and Delta States among others and made use of the
Plaintiff’s patented Transparent Ballot Boxes without the consent of the
Plaintiff.
12. The Defendants, who are indebted to the Plaintiff in the judgment sum
of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty
Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only)
have neither paid the said judgment sum nor compensated the Plaintiff
in any way before and even after the purported revocation of the
Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff in and over the Patents and
Designs listed in the said Official Gazette.
13. The grant of the reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff herein will enable
this Honourable Court to restore and preserve its judicial integrity and
authority by giving effect to its judgments of Tuesday, 5th June, 2012
and Tuesday, 28th January, 2014 respectively. The Defendants are
contemptuously and brazenly trying to erode the said judgments
through the issuance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official
Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th
March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 in violation of the said two living, valid
and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable Court.
14. It will be in the interest of justice and fair hearing for this Honourable
Court to refuse and dismiss this application and grant the reliefs being
sought by the Plaintiff so as to enable the Plaintiff enjoy the fruit of its
judgments delivered on Tuesday, 5th June, 2012 and Tuesday, 28 th
January, 2014 respectively to the fullest.
15
15. The Defendants will not in any way be prejudiced by the refusal and
dismissal of this application.
16. That I, CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE, do solemnly and

sincerely declare that I make the solemn declaration conscientiously
believing the same to be true and correct by virtue of the provisions of
the Oaths Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
…….…….……………………...
D E P O N E N T
SWORN at the Federal High Court Registry,
Abuja this ………day of July, 2016.
BEFORE M E:
………………………………………
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS
16
HOLDEN AT ABUJA.

BETWEEN:
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED….……………….….PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
AND

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT ..DEFENDANTS
COMMISSION (INEC) …APPLICANT
4. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ..RESPONDENT
PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN OPPOSING THE 3 RD

DEFENDANT/APPLICANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OUT THIS SUIT
DATED 20TH JUNE, 2016 BUT FILED ON 21ST JUNE, 2016.
INTRODUCTION/FACTS:
My Lord, by a motion on notice dated 20th June, 2016 but filed on 21st
June, 2016, the 3rd Defendant/Applicant is praying this Honourable Court
for an order striking out this suit as presently constituted for lack of
jurisdiction.
In opposing the said application, the Plaintiff /Respondent filed a Counter

Affidavit of 16 paragraphs duly deposed to by CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER
OSADOLO ODIGIE, NPOM, FSM., the Group Executive Chairman/Chief
Executive Officer of the Plaintiff/Respondent herein.
We are relying on all the paragraphs of the said Counter Affidavit, the
affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and all other court
processes filed in this suit in opposing the said application.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

1. Whether this action by which the Plaintiff/Respondent is
challenging the unlawful revocation/nullification of the Plaintiff’s
patents and designs rights is an abuse of process of court.
17
2. Whether, the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers
(Protection) Act can avail the 3rd Defendant/Applicant having
regard to the continuing damages and injuries being suffered by
the Plaintiff as borne out at paragraphs 24, 27, 28, 29, 30
(amongst other paragraphs) of the affidavit in support of the
Originating Summons.
ARGUMENT:
ISSUE ONE:
Whether this action by which the Plaintiff/Respondent is challenging

the unlawful revocation/nullification of the Plaintiff’s patents and
designs rights is an abuse of process of court.
ARGUMENT:
At pages 4 and 5 of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s written address it is the

terse contention of the Applicant herein that the instant action constitutes
an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. The reason given by the
Applicant is that the issues raised in this case are one and the same issues
being canvassed by the same parties in the Court of Appeal in Appeals Nos.
CA/A/132/2014 – ZINOX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VS BEDDING
HOLDINGS LIMITED & 5 ORS. and CA/A/132A/2014 – INEC & ANOR.
VS. BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS. The Applicant then cited the
case of MOHAMMED V. OLAWUNMI (1993) 4 NWLR (PT. 287) S. C. PAGE
254 AT PAGE 278, PARAS. D-E & 281 PARAS. E-H.
The Applicant then urges this Honourable Court to strike out this suit as an
abuse of court’s process.
It is our humble submission that the contention of the Applicant in this

regard is grossly misconceived. This is so because,
Thus, the judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING

COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS.; which gave rise to Appeals Nos.
CA/A/132/2014 – ZINOX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VS BEDDING
HOLDINGS LIMITED & 5 ORS. and CA/A/132A/2014 – INEC & ANOR.
VS. BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS., relates to the infringement of
the Plaintiff’s Patents and Designs Rights in and over the Proof of Address
System Scheme (PASS) embedded with the concept of Coded Metal Plates
and the Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB).
On the contrary, by this action, the Plaintiff/Respondent is questioning the

powers of the Respondents to unilaterally and indiscriminately
revoke/nullify the Plaintiff’s patents and designs without giving any notice
of the purported revocation of the Patents and Designs rights to the
Plaintiff. In other words, while the subject matter of the two appeals relate
18
to the infringement of the Plaintiff’s patents and Designs; and the minimum
royalty accruable therefrom, the instant suit is squarely predicated on the
purported revocation/nullification of the Plaintiff’s patents and Designs by
the Defendants, particularly the 3rd Defendant/Applicant.
It is on record that this Honourable Court had earlier on delivered two

separate judgments in favour of the Plaintiff in Suit No.
INDUSTRY & ORS.; and Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING
COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS. respectively. While the said two judgments
are still valid and subsisting till date, the 1 st and 2nd Defendants connived
with the 4th Defendant (at the instance and instigation of the 3 rd Defendant)
to issue and actually issued the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official
Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March,
2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION)
ORDER, 2014 purporting to have revoked/nullified the Patents and
Designs rights of the Plaintiff. The Defendants then purported to have
divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over the
Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette pursuant to the
provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule
to the Patent and Designs Act. We refer this Honourable Court to
EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’, which is the Certified True Copy of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated
19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014. This now led to the subsequent and multiple
infringements of the Plaintiff’s said Patents and Designs Rights in and over
the said patents and Designs.
It is these acts of the Defendants that gave rise to the instant action by
which the Plaintiff is challenging the purported revocation/nullification of
the Plaintiff’s Patent and Designs Rights and the subsequent and multiple
infringements of the Plaintiff’s Patents and Designs rights by the
Defendants arising from the purported revocation/nullification. This is so
because after the purported acts of revocation, the Defendants then
continued to use the Plaintiff’s Patented products/processes for the conduct
of subsequent elections without the prior consent and authorization of the
Plaintiff to that effect. The Defendants continuous and multiple
infringements on the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in and over the said patents
and designs was based on the Defendants misconception and belief that
pursuant to the revocation, they are now exempted from obtaining the prior
consent and authorization of the Plaintiff before using the said patented
products/processes.
It is instructive to note that the Applicant attached EXHIBITS ‘‘A’’ – ‘‘D’’ to

the motion under reference. Now, EXHIBIT ‘‘A’’ is the Notice of Appeal in
19
CA/A/132A/2014 – INEC & ANOR. VS. BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED &
ORS. A careful perusal of EXHIBIT ‘‘A’’ clearly shows that from the face of
the record, the 2nd Appellant as well as the 3rd and 4th Respondents therein
are not parties to the instant case. The Notice of Appeal is made up of
eleven (11) grounds. None of the grounds of appeal complains about the
revocation/nullification of the Plaintiff’s patents and Designs rights. In any
case, the appeals could not have any bearing with the instant case because
it was much after the two judgments have been delivered that the
Defendants, particularly the 3rd Defendant/Applicant came up with this
ploy of depriving the Plaintiff from enjoying the fruit of its judgments by
purporting to have revoked the said Patents and Designs rights of the
Plaintiff.
It is our further submission that from the totality of the contents of

EXHIBITS ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, ‘‘C’’ AND ‘‘D’’, it is abundantly clear that the parties,
subject matter and reliefs being sought in the instant case are radically
different from the parties, subject matter and reliefs in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. INDEPENDENT
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS.; which gave rise
to Appeals Nos. CA/A/132/2014 – ZINOX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VS
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED & 5 ORS. and CA/A/132A/2014 – INEC
& ANOR. VS. BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS.
It is trite law that for an action to constitute an abuse of process of court

the parties, subject-matter and reliefs in the earlier suit must be the same
or identical with the parties, subject-matter and reliefs in the latter case. in
the earlier case, the infringements were done by the Defendants at various
times between 2006 and 2010 respectively. These infringements gave rise
to the two separate actions which eventually resulted in the two valid and
subsisting judgments in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING
HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS, FEDERAL
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ORS. and Suit No.
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS. respectively.
The instant action relates to the subsequent and multiple infringements by

the Defendants at various times between 2015 and 2016. We refer this
Honourable Court to paragraphs 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 (amongst other
paragraphs) of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. It is
well-settled law that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of
the Patents and Designs Act and other enabling laws in that behalf, every
infringement of the exclusive patent and designs right of a bona fide
patentee gives rise to a fresh and separate cause of action. Therefore, such
infringement is actionable in law. This being the position of the law, it
therefore means that the subsequent and multiple infringements of the
Plaintiff’s exclusive patents and designs rights in and over the said patented
products/processes at various times between 2015 and 2016 constitute
fresh and separate causes of action which are actionable at the instance of
the Plaintiff. This is why the Plaintiff has filed the instant action. Therefore,
20
the parties, facts, subject-matter and reliefs giving rise to the instant action
are radically different in all material particular from the parties, facts,
subject-matter and reliefs giving rise to the two earlier cases, one of which is
the subject-matter of the appeals referred to by the Applicant. Thus, this
action does not in any way constitute an abuse of the process of this
Honourable Court.
We urge this Honourable Court to so hold.
ISSUE TWO:
Whether, the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers

(Protection) Act can avail the 3 rd Defendant/Applicant having regard to
the continuing damages and injuries being suffered by the Plaintiff as
borne out at paragraphs 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 (amongst other paragraphs)
of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.
ARGUMENT:
The law is well settled that in determining the issue of jurisdiction, it is the
claim of the Claimant, as borne out in the Statement of Claim that
determines the jurisdiction of a court.
In the case of ALHAJI WADA NAS V. SENATOR (CHIEF) ABRAHAM

ADESANYA (2003) 2 NWLR (PT. 803) C.A. PAGE 97 AT PAGE 106,
PARAS. F-G, RATIO 2, it was held that:
‘‘It is the claim of the plaintiff which determines the

jurisdiction of a court entertaining same. In other words, it is
to the statement of claim alone and to nothing else, such as the
evidence led, that the court must direct its search light to
determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit or
not. In the instant case, having regard to the writ of summons
and the statement of claim, nothing therein suggests that the
appellant was sued in his official capacity. The words
complained of were the personal and private views of the
appellant which he voluntarily disseminated to the press. And
the respondent’s averment in his statement of claim that the
publication was widely circulated around Lagos conferred
jurisdiction on the High Court of Lagos State.’’(Underlining
supplied for emphasis.)
Furthermore, in the case of C. B. N. V. OKOJIE (2015) 14 NWLR (PT.

1479) S. C. PAGE 231 AT PAGE 252, PARAS. E-F, RATIO 3, it was held
that:
‘‘The plaintiff’s pleading determines jurisdiction. [P. & C.H.S. Co.

Ltd. v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 555; Inakoju v.
Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 referred.]’’
21
In the instant case, it is the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons
that this Honourable Court will examine to ascertain whether this
Honourable Court has the jurisdiction. It is against this backdrop that we
shall x-ray the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Affidavit in support of the Originating
Summons filed on 17th May, 2016 in arguing this jurisdictional issue.
It is also on record before this Honourable Court that by an Amended

Statement of Claim dated and filed the 7th day of June, 2013, the Plaintiff
instituted Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD.
V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5
ORS., against the 3rd and 4th Defendants (amongst other Defendants
therein). By the said suit, the Plaintiff claimed both declaratory and
monetary reliefs against the Defendants therein as the exclusive and bona
fide owner of the Patent Rights No. RP 16642 and Copyrights Designs
No. RD 13841 in and over Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot
Boxes (ECTBB) and Patent Rights No. RP NG/P/2010/202-Proof of
Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of the
Coded Metal Plate); the process and application of which was used by the
3rd Defendant for the production of the Voter’s Register for the 2011
general election, amongst other elections. This was done by the 3 rd
Defendant without the prior license, consent and authorization of the
Plaintiff to that effect.
Now, by a well-considered Judgment delivered on Tuesday, 28th January,

2014, this Honourable Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in
the following terms, inter alia:
22
It was on the strength of the said Federal Republic of Nigeria Official

ORDER, 2014, that the Defendants (particularly the 3rd Defendant) have
been continuously and continually using the Plaintiff’s patented rights and
designs for their activities without the prior consent, authority and/or
license of the Plaintiff to that effect. Some of the patents and Designs issued
to the Plaintiff by the 1st and 2nd Defendants which the 3rd Defendant and
others have been continuously using include, but not limited to the
following Patents and Designs:

Again, it was on the strength of the said Federal Republic of Nigeria

Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014, that the 3rd Defendant on the 20th of
February, 2016 conducted a re-run election in Benue South Senatorial
District and made use of the Plaintiff’s patented transparent ballot boxes.
This was when one of the causes of action arose in this case. We refer this
Honourable Court to EXHIBIT ‘‘10’’ attached to the affidavit in support of
the Originating Summons.
This action was filed on 13th May, 2016. From 20th of February, 2016
when the Defendants, (particularly the 3 rd Defendant) made use of the
Plaintiff’s patented transparent ballot boxes to conduct and actually
conducted a re-run election in Benue South Senatorial District till 13th
May, 2016 when this action was eventually filed is a period of about two (2)
months and twenty three (23) days. This is far short of the statutory
period of three (3) months within which the Plaintiff is required to file the
said action as required by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public
Officers (Protection) Act.
Furthermore, it was on the strength of the said Federal Republic of

dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE
OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014, that the 3rd Defendant on the 28th of
23
August, 2015 made a publication in “The Nation” newspaper at page 18
announcing that it would make use of the Plaintiff’s patented Continuous
Voter Registration, Permanent Voter Cards and Smart Card Reader (among
others) contrary the judgment in Exhibit “6” . Again we refer this
Honourable Court to EXHIBIT ‘‘11’’ attached to the affidavit in support of
the Originating Summons.
Also, it was on the strength of the said Federal Republic of Nigeria Official
ORDER, 2014, that the Peoples Democratic Party in May, 2016 conducted
Congresses in Jigawa, Gombe, Ekiti, Ogun, Kebbi, Niger and Delta States
among others and made use of the Plaintiff’s patented Transparent Ballot
Boxes without the consent of the Plaintiff. The 3 rd Defendant monitored the
said primary election. We rely on EXHIBIT ‘‘12’’ attached to the affidavit in
support of the Originating Summons.
This action was filed on 13th May, 2016. The Enugu state congress of the
PDP was held on Tuesday, 10th May, 2016 wherein the 3rd Defendant who
monitored the said congress also caused the use of the Plaintiff’s patented
products for the conduct of the said primaries. A careful perusal of
EXHIBIT ‘‘12’’ also shows that from the date the PDP conducted its
primaries in Enugu State was on 10th May, 2016. This action was filed on
13th May, 2016. From 10th May, 2016 when the Enugu State PDP
Congress was held till 13th May, 2016 when this action was eventually filed
is a period of barely three (3) days. Again, this is also far short of the
statutory period of three (3) months within which the Plaintiff is required
to file the said action as required by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the
Public Officers (Protection) Act.
It is our humble submission that where the cause of action is a

continuing act or a case of continuance of damage or injury the three
months starts to run from the cessation of the continuing act, damage
or injury, and if the action is at the instance of a plaintiff, he may
commence his action within three months after the cessation of the
last cause of action giving rise to the Plaintiff’s chain of complaints. In
the instant case, the Plaintiff’s action arose from a chain of complaints
of a continuing nature which commenced from when the patents were
purportedly revoked down to when the Defendants subsequently
infringed the Plaintiff’s exclusive patents and designs rights in
multiple times.
The continuing damage or injury which gave rise to the cause of action
in this case are:
1. By the said Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol.

101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled
– USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
24
2014, the Defendants purportedly revoked the Plaintiff’s exclusive
patents and Designs.
2. On the 28th of August, 2015 the 3rd Defendant made a publication in

“The Nation” newspaper at page 18 announcing that it would make use
of the Plaintiff’s patented Continuous Voter Registration, Permanent
Voter Cards and Smart Card Reader (among others).
3. On 20th of February, 2016, the Defendants, (particularly the 3 rd

Defendant) made use of the Plaintiff’s patented transparent ballot
boxes to conduct and actually conducted a re-run election in Benue
South Senatorial District.
4. On 10th May, 2016 the Defendants (particularly the 3rd Defendant)

caused the PDP to use the Plaintiff’s exclusive patented Transparent
Ballot Boxes for the conduct and actually conducted Congresses in
Enugu, Jigawa, Gombe, Ekiti, Ogun, Kebbi, Niger and Delta States
among other states without the consent of the Plaintiff.
In the case of C. B. N. V. OKOJIE (2015) 14 NWLR (PT. 1479) S. C. PAGE

231 AT PAGE 261, PARAS. B-H, RATIO 10, it was held that:
‘‘By virtue of section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act,

an action field in court after three months from the date the
cause of action accrued is statute barred, but where the cause
of action is a continuing act or a case of continuance of
damage or injury the three months starts to run from the
cessation of the continuing act, damage or injury, and if the
action is at the instance of a prisoner, he may commence his
action within three months after he is allowed home from
prison. In the instant case, the respondent’s action arose from
a chain of complaints of a continuing nature which
commenced with his arrest and detention on 12 th May, 1992,
further arrests and finally criminal prosecution which ended
with his discharge and acquittal on 22 nd November, 1996. By
virtue of section 2 of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, the
respondent’s action was not statute barred, since it was filed
on 9th December, 1996 within three months after his cause of
action arose on 22nd November, 1996.’’ (Underlining supplied for
emphasis.)
Again, in the case of GWEDE V. INEC (2014) 18 NWLR (PT. 1438) S. C.

PAGE 56 AT PAGES 116 - 117, PARAS. H-B; RATIO 16 thereof; the
Supreme Court held thus:
‘‘A cause of action will not abate or become time barred until
the injury or damage which is of continuing nature
completely stops or abates. [Aremo II v. Adekanye (2004) 13
25
NWLR (Pt. 12 19) 271; Uwazuruike v. Nwachukwu (2013) 3
NWLR (Pt. 1342) 503; Atago v. Nwuche (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt.
1341) 337 referred to.]’’
Furthermore, in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL, RIVERS STATE V.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL BAYELSA STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 699) S. C.
PAGE 1087 AT PAGE 1106, PARAS. B-E; RATIO 7 thereof; the Supreme
Court, Per GALADIMA JSC, copiously held that continuing damage or injury
is one of the exceptions to the applicability of the provisions of Section 2(a)
of the Public Officers (Protection) Act to a public officer; when His
Lordship held thus:
‘‘In Aremo II v. Adekanye (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 224) 2113 at 2132,
this court stated the position of the law as to what constitutes
‘‘continuing damage or injury’’. It is stated thus:
‘Admittedly, legal principles are not always inflexible.
Sometimes they admit of certain exceptions. The law of
limitation of action recognizes some exceptions. Thus,
where there has been a continuance of the damage, a
fresh cause of action arises from time to time, as often as
damage is caused: Battishill v, Reed (1856) 18 CB 696 at
714. For example, if the owner of mines works them and
causes damage to the surface more than six years before
action, and within six years of action a fresh subsidence
causing damage occurs without any fresh working by the
owner, an action in respect of the fresh damage is not
barred as the fresh subsidence resulting in injury gives a
fresh cause of action.’
I hold the view that the plaintiff’s action falls squarely

within this exception as the damage and injury against it
is a continuing one.’’ (Underlining supplied for emphasis.)
From the totality of the arguments canvased above, it is clear that the
Plaintiff’s action is laden with continuing damage and injury. Therefore, the
Plaintiff’s action is not caught by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the
Public Officers (Protection) Act.
Besides, the Plaintiff’s action is for the enforcement of the Plaintiff’s

fundamental right to his personal property as enshrined under the
provisions of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended). This
provision of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) guarantees the Plaintiff’s
exclusive right to its moveable and immovable properties. In this case, it
applies to the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property Rights with regards to the
Patents and Designs under reference.
Now, Order II Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement
Procedure) Rules, 2009 provides thus:
26
‘‘An application for the enforcement of the Fundamental
Right may be made by any originating process accepted by
the Court which shall, subject to the provisions of these rules
lie without leave of Court.’’ (Underlining supplied for
emphasis.)
This means that fundamental rights proceedings can be commenced by a

originating process or procedure such as Originating Summons by which
this action was commenced. This is cognizable in law.
Again, Order III Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement

Procedure) Rules, 2009 provides thus:
‘‘An application for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights shall

not be affected by any limitation Statute whatsoever.’’
This also shows that there is no time limit within which the Plaintiff can
enforce its exclusive right to the said patented products/processes.
Furthermore, it is the contention of the Plaintiff that the Defendants acted

outside the colour and semblance of their statutory powers and in bad faith
by purportedly revoking the Plaintiff’s said exclusive Patents and Designs
rights without any giving notice to the Plaintiff to that effect.
It is also settled law that elements of abuse of office and bad faith are factors
that deprive a public officer, who would otherwise have been entitled to the
protection of section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law, of such
protection.
Thus, in the case of EZEANI V. NIGERIAN RAILWAY CORPORATION

(2015) 3 NWLR (PT. 1445) C. A. PAGE 139 AT PAGE 158, PARAS. F-G,
RATIO 6, it was held that:
‘‘Abuse of office and bad faith are factors that deprive a party
who would otherwise have been entitled to the protection of
section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law of such
protection. [Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 17 (1194) 604 referred
to]’’
Finally, on the strength of the above cited authorities, we therefore submit

that the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act
cannot avail the 3rd Defendant/Applicant having regard to the continuing
damages and injuries being suffered by the Plaintiff as borne out at
paragraphs 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 (amongst other paragraphs) of the affidavit
in support of the Originating Summons.
We therefore urge this Honourable Court to resolve this issue in favour of

the Plaintiff/Respondent and against the Applicant.
27
CONCLUSION:
In the final analysis, we therefore urge this Honourable Court to refuse and
accordingly dismiss the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s instant application for the
following reasons, amongst others:
(1) The Plaintiff’s action does not constitute an abuse of process of court.
(2) The Plaintiff’s action, which is laden with continuing damage and
injury, is not statute barred.
(3) The grant of the reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff herein will enable
(4) It will be in the interest of justice and fair hearing for this Honourable
Court to refuse and dismiss this application and grant the reliefs being
sought by the Plaintiff so as to enable the Plaintiff enjoy the fruit of its
judgments delivered on Tuesday, 5th June, 2012 and Tuesday, 28th
January, 2014 respectively to the fullest.
(5) The Defendants will not in any way be prejudiced by the refusal and
dismissal of this application.
DATED this ……… day of July, 2016.
..……………………………
ASSAM E. ASSAM, SAN,
CHIEF KARINA TUNYAN, SAN,
OLUSOJI TOKI, LL.M.,
JOHN OKORIKO ESQ.,
TOKILEGAL
WUSE ZONE 4,
ABUJA
08033282935,
08028323432
28
FOR SERVICE ON:

OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.

B. U. IDRIS ESQ.,
2ND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL,
C/O COMMERCIAL LAW DEPARTMENT,
OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.

C/O ITS COUNSEL,
ASIWAJU ADEGBOYEGA S. AWOMOLO SAN, FCIArb. FNIALS,
AB MAHMUD SAN,
DR. ONYECHI IKPEAZU SAN,
HASSAN LIMAN SANFCIArb OON,
AHMED RAJI SAN, FCIArb (UK)
CHIEF (MRS) V. O. AWOMOLO SAN FCIArb,
Eyitayo Fatogun,
ADEGBOYEGA AWOMOLO & ASSOCIATES,
VICTORIA COURT, 444 CRESCENT,
OFF 441 CRESCENT,
CITEC VILLAS,
GWARINPA, ABUJA.
08035909719
Awomoloandassociates_abuja@yahoo.com

SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
29
ABUJA.
30
31
HOLDEN AT ABUJA.
SUIT NO. FHC/ABJ/CS/ /2016

BETWEEN:
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED….……………………………….….PLAINTIFF
AND

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT ……..DEFENDANTS
COMMISSION (INEC)
ORIGINATING SUMMONS
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 AND 251 OF

THE 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED), SECTIONS 6, 25, 26 AND
PARAGRAPHS 15, 17 & 17 OF PART II OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO
THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT, CAP. P12, LAWS OF THE
FEDERATION OF NIGERIA, 2004, ORDER 3 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH
COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2009 AND UNDER THE INHERENT
JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Let (1) THE HONOURABLE MINISTER, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF

INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT) (2) THE REGISTRAR OF
PATENTS, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND
INVESTMENT 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
(INEC) and 4. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE
FEDERATION AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE within thirty (30) days after
the service of this summons on them, inclusive of the day of such service,
cause an appearance to be entered for them and file any other process in
response to this Summons which is issued upon the application of
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED of No. 55, Adeniyi Jones Avenue, Ikeja,
Lagos State who claims Declarations, Orders and Injunctions for the
determination of the following questions:
1. Whether the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the

First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P12, Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (hereinafter called ‘the Patent and
Designs Act’) which the Defendants invoked to issue the Federal
Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government
32
Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF
PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
2014 purporting to have revoked the Patents and Designs rights of the
Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights
in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette,
without notifying and compensating the Plaintiff to that effect, are not
inferior and inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of Sections
1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the Constitution of Federal Republic
of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) hereinafter called “the Constitution”
and Sections 6 and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act (amongst other
laws in that behalf).
2. Whether by the proper and combined construction and interpretation of

Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the Constitution, Sections 6
and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act (amongst other laws in that
behalf), the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol.
101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled –
2014 has the retrospective effect of revoking the Patents and Designs
rights of the Plaintiff and divesting the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive
patent rights in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes and the Proof
of Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of
Coded Metal Plate) associated with the process and the application of
the Direct Data Capturing Machines for the procurement and
compilation of the Voter’s Register and depriving the Plaintiff of the
enjoyment of the royalties accruable to the Plaintiff by way of adjudged
damages arising from the multiple and monumental infringements of
the Plaintiff’s said Patents and Designs by the Defendants as listed in
the said Official Gazette in violation of the valid and subsisting
Judgments of this Honourable Court earlier delivered on Tuesday, the
5th day of June, 2012 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ORS; and Tuesday, the
28th day of January, 2014 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 –
BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS. respectively.
3. Whether by the proper and combined construction and interpretation

of Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the Constitution,
Sections 6, 25, 26 and Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the
First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act, (amongst other laws
in that behalf), the Defendants can issue the Federal Republic of
Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No.
24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR
SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 purporting to
have revoked the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff and
33
divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in and
over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette in
violation of the valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable
Court earlier delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 2012 in Suit
INDUSTRY & ORS; and Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in
Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V.
ORS. respectively.
4. Whether by the proper and combined construction and interpretation

of Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the Constitution,
Sections 6 and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act (amongst other
laws in that behalf), the 3rd Defendant’s continuous infringement on
the Plaintiff’s adjudged exclusive patent and design rights in and over
the Transparent Ballot Boxes and the Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of Coded
Metal Plate) associated with the process and the application of the
Direct Data Capturing Machines for the procurement and compilation
of the Voter’s Register and depriving the Plaintiff of the enjoyment of
the royalties accruable to the Plaintiff based on the Federal Republic
of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice
No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 is not a breach of the
Plaintiff’s fundamental rights?
WHEREUPON the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants jointly and/or

severally as follows:
1. A DECLARATION that the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of

Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act which
the Defendants invoked to issue the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 purporting to have revoked the Patents
and Designs rights of the Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its
adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over the Patents and Designs
listed in the said Official Gazette, without notifying and compensating
the Plaintiff to that effect, is inferior and inconsistent with the
mandatory provisions of Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the
1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Sections 6, and 25 of the
Patent and Designs Act and therefore unconstitutional, unlawful,
illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever to that extent.
34
2. A DECLARATION that the subsequent issuance of the Federal
Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS
FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 in violation of
the valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable Court earlier
delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 2012 in Suit No.
INDUSTRY & ORS. and Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in Suit
No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V.
ORS. respectively, which have adjudged the Plaintiff as the bona fide
and exclusive owner of the said patents listed in the said Official
Gazette is contrary to the sacrosanct principle of rule of law and
therefore void.
3. A DECLARATION that the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official

Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 does not and cannot have the
retrospective effect of revoking the Patents and Designs rights of the
Plaintiff and divesting the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent
rights in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes and the Proof of
Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of
Coded Metal Plate) associated with the process and the application of
the Direct Data Capturing Machines for the procurement and
compilation of the Voter’s Register and depriving the Plaintiff of the
enjoyment of the royalties accruable to the Plaintiff by way of
adjudged damages arising from the multiple and monumental
infringements of the Plaintiff’s said Patents and Designs by the
Defendants as listed in the said Official Gazette in violation of the
valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable Court earlier
INDUSTRY & ORS; and Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in
ORS. respectively.
4. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1(1),

(3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the Constitution, Sections 6 and 25 of
the Patent and Designs Act together with the valid and subsisting
Judgments of this Honourable Court earlier delivered on Tuesday, the
5th day of June, 2012 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 –
BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS,
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ORS. and on
35
Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in Suit No.
ORS. respectively which have adjudged the Plaintiff as the bona fide
and exclusive owner of the said patents listed in the said Official
Gazette, the Defendants cannot subsequently issue the Federal
2014 purporting to have revoked the Patents and Designs rights of
the Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent
rights in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official
Gazette and in violation of the said valid and subsisting judgments of
this Honourable Court; without notifying and compensating the
Plaintiff adequately to that effect.

the Patent and Designs Act (amongst other laws in that behalf), the
3rd Defendant’s continuous infringement on the Plaintiff’s adjudged
exclusive patent and design rights in and over the Transparent Ballot
Boxes and the Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded
with the Concept of Coded Metal Plate) associated with the process
and the application of the Direct Data Capturing Machines for the
procurement and compilation of the Voter’s Register and depriving
the Plaintiff of the enjoyment of the royalties accruable to the Plaintiff
based on the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18
Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th March, 2014 and
titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT
ORDER, 2014 is a breach of the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights?
6. AN ORDER NULLIFYING AND/OR SETTING ASIDE the entire

the Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent
Gazette, without notifying and compensating the Plaintiff to that
effect, for being inferior and inconsistent with the provisions of
Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the Constitution and
Sections 6, and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act and therefore
unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null, void and of no effect
whatsoever.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE
36
7. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT directing the
Defendants to jointly and or severally pay the Plaintiff, a sum of
N100, 000,000,000 (One Hundred Billion Naira) as
compensation/general damages for unfair, unlawful and
unconstitutional revocation of the Plaintiff’s adjudged exclusive
patent and design rights in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes
and the Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with
the Concept of Coded Metal Plate) associated with the process and
the application of the Direct Data Capturing Machines for the
procurement and compilation of the Voter’s Register and depriving
the Plaintiff of the enjoyment of the royalties accruable to the Plaintiff
based on the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18
Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and
ORDER, 2014.
DATED the ……… day of May, 2016.
This Summons was taken out by SOJI TOKI, ESQ and JOHN OKORIKO
ESQ. of TOKILEGAL Suite 2.08 Willands Plaza, Herbert Macaulay Way,
Wuse Zone 4, Abuja sojitoki@yahoo.co.uk 08033282935, 08028323432,
legal practitioners for the above-named Plaintiff. The Defendants may
appear hereunto by entering appearance personally or by a legal practitioner
either by filing the appropriate processes/forms duly completed in response
at the Federal High Court Registry of the Abuja Judicial Division of the
Federal High Court or by sending them to that office by any of the methods
allowed by the Rules of court.
Note: If the Defendant(s) do(es) not respond within the time at the place
above mentioned, such orders will be made and proceedings may be taken
as the Judge may think just and expedient.
FOR SERVICE ON:

OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.
37
REGISTRAR OF PATENTS, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT)
OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
PLOT 436, ZAMBEZI CRESCENT,
MAITAMA DISTRICT A5, ABUJA.

SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
ABUJA.
38
HOLDEN AT ABUJA.

BETWEEN:
AND

COMMISSION (INEC)
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS.
I, CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE, NPOM, FSM. Adult, Male,

Christian, Nigerian Citizen, of No. 55, Adeniyi Jones Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos
State of Nigeria do hereby make oath and state as follows that:
1. I am the Group Executive Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of the

Plaintiff herein, by virtue of which fact I am very conversant with the
facts I hereto depose as I am directly in charge of all the general
activities of the Plaintiff.
2. I have the consent and authority of the Plaintiff to depose to this

affidavit.
3. The Plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the Companies and

Allied Matter Act; and it has its Corporate Head Office at Plot 55,
Adeniyi Jones Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos; a place outside the territorial
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. A copy of the Memorandum and
Articles of Association together with the Certificate of Incorporation of
the Plaintiff are hereto collectively attached and marked as EXHIBIT
‘‘1’’.
4. The 1st Defendant is the Honourable Minister of the Federal Ministry of

Industry, Trade and Investment. The 1st Defendant is generally in
charge of the all the activities of the Ministry relating to industry, trade
and investment such as the registration, issuance and proprietorship of
patents and/or designs (amongst other things), as well as keeping the
register of patents and designs in Nigeria pursuant to relevant
provisions of the Patent and Designs Act. The 1st Defendant has staff
39
in her employment by which she carries out her day-to-day activities.
By virtue of this fact the 1st Defendant is seised of the details of all
patented products which are already registered and issued by the 1 st
Defendant to the Plaintiff, amongst other patentees; which patents are
in existence by her records. The 1st Defendant has his office situate at
Old Secretariat, Area 1, Garki, Abuja; a place within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
5. The 2nd Defendant is an official of the Federal Government of Nigeria

under the establishment and employment of the 1 st Defendant. The 2nd
Defendant is responsible for the registration, issuance and
proprietorship of patents and/or designs, as well as keeping the
register of patents and designs in Nigeria pursuant to relevant
provisions of the Patent and Designs Act. By virtue of this fact the 2 nd
Defendant is seised of the details of all patented products which are
already registered and issued by the 1 st Defendant to the Plaintiff,
amongst other patentees; which patents are in existence by her
records. The 2nd Defendant also has its office situate at Old Secretariat,
Area 1, Garki-Abuja; a place within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court.
6. The 3rd Defendant is the Federal Government Commission/Agency

charged with the responsibility of conducting, monitoring, observing,
supervising and coordinating all elections all over Nigeria. The 3 rd
Defendant uses the Plaintiff’s Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or any obvious
derivative and/or imitation of same as one of her essential and
sensitive election materials during the conduct of elections all over
Nigeria. The 3rd Defendant also uses the Plaintiff’s adjudged patented
Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the
Concept of Coded Metal Plate) associated with the process and the
application of the Direct Data Capturing Machines for the procurement
and compilation of the Voter’s Register all over Nigeria. The 3rd
Defendant has her Corporate Office at Plot 436, Zambezi Crescent,
Maitama District A5, Abuja; a place within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Honourable Court.
7. The 4th Defendant is the Chief Law Officer of the Federal Government of
Nigeria who is constitutionally responsible for the administration of
justice and the enforcement of all laws with respect to legal matters all
over the country, including but not limited to, the construction of
statutes, issuance of Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria [such as the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette
No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th March, 2014
and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT
ORDER, 2014 forming the subject matter of this action] and all other
legal documents for the operation of any project of the Federal
40
Government of Nigeria or any of her agents and agencies including, but
not limited to, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
8. The Plaintiff is the bona fide and exclusive owner of so many Patents
and Designs issued to the Plaintiff by the 1 st and 2nd Defendants and
duly registered with the 2 nd Defendant. Some of the patents and
Designs issued to the Plaintiff by the 1 st and 2nd Defendants include,
but not limited to the following Patents and Designs:

9. Initially, by an Originating Summons dated and filed on 18th

November, 2010, the Plaintiff instituted Suit No.
INDUSTRY & ORS. against the 3rd and 4th Defendants (amongst other
parties therein) claiming its exclusive ownership of the inventions
named- Transparent Ballot Boxes vide the Plaintiff’s Certificate of
Registration of Patent Rights No. RP 12994 and Registration of
Industrial Designs Rights No. RD 5946 issued to the Plaintiff since
12th January, 1998 and its exclusive ownership of the invention
named Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes vide the
Plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No. RP 16642
and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No. RD 13841 issued
to the Plaintiff on 27th November, 2006.
10. By two letters dated 25th November, 2010 and 2nd December, 2010
respectively, the 4th Defendant invited the Plaintiff and the other
Defendants to his office for an amicable settlement of the dispute
between the Plaintiff and the Defendants therein. The Plaintiff
withdrew the case as advised by the 4 th Defendant and honored the
invitation of the 4th Defendant. However, the settlement move made by
the 4th Defendant failed because the 3rd and 4th Defendants herein were
not sincere with the settlement move. Copies of the said letters issued
by the 4th Defendant to the Plaintiff inviting the Plaintiff for the
settlement of the disputes are hereto collectively attached and marked
as EXHIBIT ‘‘2’’.
11. Subsequently, by an Originating Summons dated and filed on 27th

January, 2011, the Plaintiff instituted Suit No.
41
INDUSTRY & ORS. against the 3rd and 4th Defendants (amongst other
parties therein) claiming its exclusive ownership of the inventions
named- Transparent Ballot Boxes vide the Plaintiff’s Certificate of
Registration of Patent Rights No. RP 12994 and Registration of
Industrial Designs Rights No. RD 5946 issued to the Plaintiff since
12th January, 1998 and its exclusive ownership of the invention
named Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes vide the
Plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No. RP 16642
and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No. RD 13841 issued
to the Plaintiff on 27th November, 2006.
12. At the conclusion of the hearing in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 –

BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS,
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ORS., this
Honourable Court delivered a well-considered judgment on Tuesday,
the 5th day of June, 2012, granting all the reliefs sought by the
Plaintiff.
13. By the said judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on Tuesday,

5th June, 2012, the Plaintiff has been adjudged as the exclusive, bona
fide and legitimate owner of the said patented Transparent Ballot
Boxes and/or Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes or
any obvious derivative and/or imitation of same. The said judgment is
still valid and subsisting till date. A copy of the Enrolled Judgment
Order issued on Tuesday, 5th June, 2012, by which the Plaintiff has
been adjudged as the exclusive, bona fide and legitimate owner of the
said patented Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Boxes or any obvious derivative and/or imitation of
same is hereto attached and marked as EXHIBIT ‘‘3’’.
14. The judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ORS. is in respect of the
Plaintiff’s patent and designs rights over the Transparent Ballot Box
(TBB). The Transparent Ballot Box is designed to withstand tampering
and the acrylic perspect allows for a clear view of the interior of the box
as proof of its emptiness or fullness thereby making ‘transparency’ as
one of its unique features. Also featuring in this judgment is the
improved derivative of the TBB now known as Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) comes with electronic features that
include Electronic Optic Card Reader (OCR), Laptop Computer
embedded with Fingerprint scanner, a High Resolution Camera,
Electronic Display Board, a printer etc.
15. To ensure compliance with the said judgment of this Honourable

Court, on 15th June, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained the Enrolled
Judgment Order and by two separate letters both dated 19th June,
2012 or thereabout, the Plaintiff served the said Enrolled Judgment
Order on the Defendants. Copies of the Plaintiff’s letters dated 19 th
42
June, 2012 by which the Plaintiff conveyed the Enrolled Judgment
Order to the Defendants; which letters bear the respective stamps of
the Defendants acknowledging the receipt of the said letters are hereto
collectively attached and marked as EXHIBIT ‘‘4’’.
16. By the said letters, the Plaintiff implored the Defendants to comply
with the judgment of this Honourable Court by abstaining from using
the Plaintiff’s patented Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or Electronic
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes or any obvious derivative
and/or imitation of same for the conduct of any elections all over the
Federal Republic of Nigeria) EXCEPT with the prior consent, authority
and/or license of the Plaintiff to that effect as contained in the
Judgments of the Court; failing which the Plaintiff threatened to
commence legal proceedings against the Defendants.
17. In addition to the service of the Enrolled Judgment Order on the

Defendants by the Plaintiff, the said Judgment was reported in various
media as news item on 4th July, 2012; which included THE NATION
newspaper. The Plaintiff also published the said Enrolled Judgment
Order of this Honourable Court in various newspapers on Wednesday,
July 4, 2012 to the knowledge of all the Defendants herein and the
entire world. Copy of THE NATION newspaper of Wednesday, July 4,
2012 at page 63 thereof wherein the said Enrolled Judgment Order
together with the letter by which the said order was conveyed to the 3 rd
Defendant is hereto attached and marked as EXHIBIT ‘‘5’’.
18. Also, by an Amended Statement of Claim dated and filed the 7th day of
June, 2013, the Plaintiff instituted Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010
– BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS., against the 3rd and 4th
Defendants (amongst other Defendants therein). By the said suit, the
Plaintiff claimed both declaratory and monetary reliefs against the
Defendants therein as the exclusive and bona fide owner of the Patent
Rights No. RP 16642 and Copyrights Designs No. RD 13841 in and
over Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) and
Patent Rights No. RP NG/P/2010/202-Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of the Coded
Metal Plate); the process and application of which was used by the 3 rd
Defendant for the production of the Voter’s Register for the 2011
general election, amongst other elections. This was done by the 3 rd
Defendant without the prior license, consent and authorization of the
Plaintiff to that effect.
19. By a well-considered Judgment delivered on Tuesday, 28th January,

2014, this Honourable Court entered judgment in favour of the
Plaintiff in the following terms, inter alia:
43
20. By three separate letters all dated 12th February, 2014, the Plaintiff
requested the Defendants therein (including the 3 rd and 4th Defendants
herein) to pay the judgment sum of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen
Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and
Twenty Thousand Naira Only) to the Plaintiff forthwith but the 3rd
and 4th Defendants failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the said
judgment sum to the Plaintiff till date despite the demands. The three
demand letters dated 12th February, 2014 addressed to the respective
Defendants therein are hereto collectively attached and marked as
EXHIBIT ‘‘7’’.
21. The 3rd and 4th Defendants, who are in receipt of the respective letters
of demand from the Plaintiff, have failed, refused and/or neglected to
satisfy the judgment debt since Tuesday, 28th January, 2014 till date.
Therefore, the judgment debt of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen
Twenty Thousand Naira Only) still remains wholly unsatisfied by the
Defendants till date despite demands by the Plaintiff to that effect.
22. The judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING

COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS. relates to the Proof of Address System
Scheme (PASS) embedded with the concept of Coded Metal Plates. It is
a compulsory and verifiable form of identity that can be used by the
government on both public and private sectors establishment matters.
It is a form of identity for the compilation, elimination and updating of
the Voter’s Register. It is a combination of the process and application
44
of the Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and the
PASS described above to produce the compilation of a Voter’s Register
with the bio-data information derivable from a voter by the use of the
following specialized equipment, viz: Direct Data Capture Machines,
Laptops and/or any other equipment ancillary to or associated with the
process and application of the said product to produce the Voter’s
Register which involves the collation and collection of the names, age,
sex, address, fingerprints and every other bio-data of every person
resident in Nigeria together with the addresses and geographical
description and location of various places in Nigeria.
23. Surprisingly, while the said two judgments are still valid and
subsisting till date, the 1st and 2nd Defendants connived with the 4th
Defendant (at the instance and instigation of the 3 rd Defendant) to
issue and actually issued the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 purporting to have revoked the Patents
and Designs rights of the Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its
adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over the Patents and Designs
listed in the said Official Gazette pursuant to the provisions of
Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the
Patent and Designs Act. A certified true copy of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24
dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE
OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 is hereto attached and
marked as EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’.
24. By the said Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol.
101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled
– USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
2014, the 1st and 2nd Defendants purport to have revoked the Patents
and Designs rights in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the
said Official Gazette and authorize the 3 rd Defendant or any person(s)
authorized by the 3rd Defendant ‘‘to purchase, make or vend any
article embodying’’ the Plaintiff’s inventions described in and covered
by the Plaintiff’s Patents and Designs specified in paragraph (a)(i)-(vii)
of the said Official Gazette.
25. The Plaintiff was never given any notice of the purported revocation of
the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff before and after the
purported revocation of the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff
in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette.
26. The Plaintiff only got to know of the purported revocation of its vested
patents and Designs rights in and over the said inventions listed in
45
EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ through the Counter Affidavit (in its paragraph 20) of the
3rd Defendant filed in a sister Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/685/2013 –
BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. COMRADE ADAMS OSHIOMHOLE
(THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF EDO STATE) & 6 ORS. wherein
they attached the Gazette to their Counter Affidavit as Exhibit ‘‘1’’
claiming that the Plaintiff has been divested of its Patent and Designs
right by the 1st Defendant. A copy of the said Counter Affidavit served
on the Plaintiff by the 3rd Defendant herein [as the 6th Defendant in
COMRADE ADAMS OSHIOMHOLE (THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR
OF EDO STATE) & 6 ORS] is herewith attached and marked as
EXHIBIT ‘‘9’’
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014, the 3rd Defendant in
particular and others have been using the Plaintiff’s patented rights
and designs for their activities without the prior consent, authority
and/or license of the Plaintiff to that effect. Some of the patents and
Designs issued to the Plaintiff by the 1 st and 2nd Defendants which the
3rd Defendant and other have been using include, but not limited to the
following Patents and Designs:

20th of February, 2016 conducted a re-run election in Benue South
Senatorial District and made use of the Plaintiff’s patented transparent
ballot boxes. A copy of the certified true copy of “The Nation”
newspaper dated 21st February, 2016 at page 5 is herewith attached
and marked as EXHIBIT ‘‘10’’
46
28th of August, 2015 made a publication in “The Nation” newspaper at
page 18 announcing that it would make use of the Plaintiff’s patented
Continuous Voter Registration, Permanent Voter Cards and Smart
Card Reader (among others) contrary the judgment in Exhibit “6” . A
copy of the certified true copy of “The Nation” newspaper dated 28th
August, 2015 at page 18 is herewith attached and marked as
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014, the Peoples Democratic
Party in May, 2016 conducted Congresses in Jigawa, Gombe, Ekiti,
Ogun, Kebbi, Niger and Delta States among others and made use of the
Plaintiff’s patented Transparent Ballot Boxes without the consent of the
Plaintiff. A copy of the certified true copy of “The Nation” newspaper
dated 11th May, 2016 at page 41 is herewith attached and marked as
31. I know as a fact that the reason the Plaintiff has not made any claim
against the Peoples Democratic Party for the infringement of its right in
May, 2016 is the said Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette
No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March,
2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014
32. The Defendants, who are indebted to the Plaintiff in the judgment sum
of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty
Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only)
have neither paid the said judgment sum nor compensated the Plaintiff
in any way before and even after the purported revocation of the
33. The grant of the reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff herein will enable
47
34. It will be in the interest of justice and fair hearing for this Honourable
Court to grant all the reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff so as to
enable the Plaintiff enjoy the fruit of its judgments delivered on
Tuesday, 5th June, 2012 and Tuesday, 28th January, 2014
respectively to the fullest.
35. The Defendants will not in any way be prejudiced by the grant of the
reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff.
36. That I, CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE, do solemnly and

sincerely declare that I make the solemn declaration conscientiously
believing the same to be true and correct by virtue of the provisions of
the Oaths Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
…….……………………..
D E P O N E N T
SWORN at the Federal High Court Registry,
Abuja this ………day of May, 2016.
BEFORE M E:
____________________________
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS
48
HOLDEN AT ABUJA.

BETWEEN:
AND

COMMISSION (INEC)
PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN ARGUING THE ORIGINATING

SUMMONS.
My Lord, we have an Originating Summons before this Honourable Court.

The said Originating Summons is brought pursuant to Sections 1(1), (3) 6,
36, 44 and 251 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended), Sections 6, 25
and 26 of the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P12, Laws of the Federation
of Nigeria, 2004, Order 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 2009 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
By this Originating Summons, the Plaintiff is praying this Honourable Court

for the following reliefs, to wit:
‘‘1. A DECLARATION that the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16

and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and
Designs Act which the Defendants invoked to issue the
Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol.
101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th March, 2014
and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 purporting to
have revoked the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff
and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent
rights in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said
Official Gazette, without notifying and compensating the
Plaintiff to that effect, is inferior and inconsistent with the
mandatory provisions of Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and
251 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Sections
6, and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act and therefore
49
unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null, void and of no
effect whatsoever to that extent.
2. A DECLARATION that the subsequent issuance of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol.
101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th March, 2014
and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 in violation of the
valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable Court
earlier delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 2012 in
Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING HOLDINGS
LTD. V. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS, FEDERAL
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ORS. and
Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in Suit No.
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
(INEC) & 5 ORS. respectively, which have adjudged the
Plaintiff as the bona fide and exclusive owner of the said
patents listed in the said Official Gazette is contrary to the
sacrosanct principle of rule of law.
3. A DECLARATION that the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No.
24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS
FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
(INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION)
ORDER, 2014 does not and cannot have the retrospective
effect of revoking the Patents and Designs rights of the
Plaintiff and divesting the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive
patent rights in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes and
the Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded
with the Concept of Coded Metal Plate) associated with the
process and the application of the Direct Data Capturing
Machines for the procurement and compilation of the Voter’s
Register and depriving the Plaintiff of the enjoyment of the
royalties accruable to the Plaintiff by way of adjudged
damages arising from the multiple and monumental
infringements of the Plaintiff’s said Patents and Designs by
the Defendants as listed in the said Official Gazette in
violation of the valid and subsisting Judgments of this
Honourable Court earlier delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of
June, 2012 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING
HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS,
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ORS;
and Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in Suit No.
(INEC) & 5 ORS. respectively.
50
4. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Sections
1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the 1999 Constitution (As
Amended), Sections 6 and 25 of the Patent and Designs
Act together with the valid and subsisting Judgments of this
Honourable Court earlier delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of
June, 2012 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING
HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS,
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ORS.
and Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in Suit No.
(INEC) & 5 ORS. respectively which have adjudged the
Plaintiff as the bona fide and exclusive owner of the said
patents listed in the said Official Gazette, the Defendants
cannot subsequently issue the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No.
24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS
FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
(INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION)
ORDER, 2014 purporting to have revoked the Patents and
Designs rights of the Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its
adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over the Patents and
Designs listed in the said Official Gazette and in violation of
the said valid and subsisting judgments of this Honourable
Court; without notifying and compensating the Plaintiff
adequately to that effect.

the Patent and Designs Act (amongst other laws in that behalf),
the 3rd Defendant’s continuous infringement on the Plaintiff’s
adjudged exclusive patent and design rights in and over the
Transparent Ballot Boxes and the Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of Coded
Metal Plate) associated with the process and the application of the
Direct Data Capturing Machines for the procurement and
compilation of the Voter’s Register and depriving the Plaintiff of
the enjoyment of the royalties accruable to the Plaintiff based on
the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol.
101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th March, 2014 and
AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 is a breach of the Plaintiff’s
fundamental rights?
6. AN ORDER NULLIFYING AND/OR SETTING ASIDE the entire

51
the Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive
patent rights in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said
Official Gazette, without notifying and compensating the Plaintiff to
that effect, for being inferior and inconsistent with the provisions
of Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the Constitution and
Sections 6, and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act and therefore
unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null, void and of no effect
whatsoever.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE
7. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT directing the

Defendants to jointly and or severally pay the Plaintiff, a sum of
N100, 000,000,000 (One Hundred Billion Naira) as
compensation/general damages for unfair, unlawful and
unconstitutional revocation of the Plaintiff’s adjudged exclusive
patent and design rights in and over the Transparent Ballot
Boxes and the Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS)
(Embedded with the Concept of Coded Metal Plate) associated
with the process and the application of the Direct Data Capturing
Machines for the procurement and compilation of the Voter’s
Register and depriving the Plaintiff of the enjoyment of the
royalties accruable to the Plaintiff based on the Federal Republic
of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice
No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS
FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014.’’
There is an affidavit of thirty-six (36) paragraphs in support of the said

Originating Summons. The said affidavit is duly deposed to by CHIEF (DR.)
SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE, the Group Executive Chairman/Chief
Executive Officer of the Plaintiff herein.
Attached to the said affidavit are the following exhibits, to wit:
EXHIBIT ‘‘1’’: A copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association

together with the Certificate of Incorporation of the Plaintiff.
EXHIBIT ‘‘2’’: Copies of the said letters issued by the 4 th Defendant to the
Plaintiff inviting the Plaintiff for the settlement of the disputes.
EXHIBIT ‘‘3’’: A copy of the Enrolled Judgment Order issued on Tuesday,

5th June, 2012, by which the Plaintiff has been adjudged as the exclusive,
bona fide and legitimate owner of the said patented Transparent Ballot
Boxes and/or Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes or any
obvious derivative and/or imitation of same.
52
EXHIBIT ‘‘4’’: Copies of the Plaintiff’s letters dated 19 th June, 2012 by
which the Plaintiff conveyed the Enrolled Judgment Order to the
Defendants; which letters bear the respective stamps of the Defendants
acknowledging the receipt of the said letters.
EXHIBIT ‘‘5’’: Copy of THE NATION newspaper of Wednesday, July 4,

2012 at page 63 thereof wherein the said Enrolled Judgment Order
together with the letter by which the said order was conveyed to the 3 rd
Defendant.
EXHIBIT ‘‘6’’: A Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Judgment Order of the
Federal High Court delivered on Tuesday, 28 th January, 2014 and duly
served on the Defendants.
EXHIBIT ‘‘7’’: The three (3) demand letters dated 12 th February, 2014
addressed to the respective Defendants therein.
EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’: A certified true copy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014.
EXHIBIT ‘‘9’’: A copy of the Counter Affidavit served on the Plaintiff by the
3rd Defendant herein [as the 6th Defendant in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/685/2013 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. COMRADE
ADAMS OSHIOMHOLE (THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF EDO STATE) & 6
ORS]
EXHIBIT ‘‘10’’: A copy of the certified true copy of “The Nation” newspaper
dated 21st February, 2016 at page 5.
dated 28th August, 2015 at page 18.
dated 11th May, 2016 at page 41.
We are relying on all the paragraphs of the affidavit together with the
exhibits attached thereto in arguing this Originating Summons.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
1. Whether the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the

First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P12, Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (hereinafter simply called ‘the
Patent and Designs Act’) which the Defendants invoked to issue the
53
Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE
OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent
Gazette, without notifying and compensating the Plaintiff to that effect,
are not inferior and inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of
Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the 1999 Constitution (As
Amended) and Sections 6, and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act
(amongst other laws in that behalf)?

Amended), Sections 6 and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act
(amongst other laws in that behalf), the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 has the retrospective effect of revoking
the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff and divesting the Plaintiff
of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over the Transparent
Ballot Boxes and the Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS)
(Embedded with the Concept of Coded Metal Plate) associated with
the process and the application of the Direct Data Capturing Machines
for the procurement and compilation of the Voter’s Register and
depriving the Plaintiff of the enjoyment of the royalties accruable to the
Plaintiff by way of adjudged damages arising from the multiple and
monumental infringements of the Plaintiff’s said Patents and Designs
by the Defendants as listed in the said Official Gazette in violation of
the valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable Court earlier
INDUSTRY & ORS; and Tuesday, the 28 th day of January, 2014 in
ORS. Respectively?

Amended), Sections 6, 25, 26 and Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part
II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act, (amongst
other laws in that behalf), the Defendants can issue the Federal
54
Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights
in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette in
violation of the valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable
Court earlier delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 2012 in Suit
INDUSTRY & ORS; and Tuesday, the 28 th day of January, 2014 in
ORS. Respectively?
ARGUMENT:
ISSUE ONE:
Whether the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First

Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act which the Defendants invoked to
issue the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101,
Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF
PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (INDEPENDENT
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 purporting to have
revoked the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff and divested the
Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over the Patents and
Designs listed in the said Official Gazette, without notifying and
compensating the Plaintiff to that effect, are not inferior and inconsistent
with the mandatory provisions of Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of
the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Sections 6, and 25 of the
Patent and Designs Act (amongst other laws in that behalf)?
ARGUMENT:
My Lord, the facts giving rise to the instant suit are copiously and
exhaustively contained in the affidavit in support of this Originating
Summons. The Plaintiff is the bona fide and exclusive owner of so many
Patents and Designs issued to the Plaintiff by the 1 st and 2nd Defendants and
duly registered with the 2nd Defendant. Some of the patents and Designs
issued to the Plaintiff by the 1 st and 2nd Defendants include, but not limited
to the following Patents and Designs:

The bona fide and exclusive patented rights of the Plaintiff in and over the
said Patents and Designs have been confirmed by this Honourable Court in
55
two separate judgments of this Honourable Court. They are the judgment in
Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE
INDUSTRY & ORS., delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 2012, and
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS.,
delivered on Tuesday, 28th January, 2014. We rely on EXHIBITS ‘‘3’’ AND
‘‘6’’ respectively to that effect.
Besides, Section 6(1)(a) (b), (2) of the Patents and Designs Act clearly
provides that:
‘‘6(1) A patent confers upon the patentee the right to preclude any
other person from doing any of the following acts:
(a) where the patent has been granted in respect of a product,

the act of making, importing, selling or using the product or
stocking it for the purpose of sale or use; and
(b) where the patent has been granted in respect of a process,

the act of applying the process or doing, in respect of a
product obtained directly by means of the process, any other
act mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(2) The scope of the protection conferred by a patent shall be

determined by the terms of the claims; and the description
(and plans and drawings, if any) included in the patent shall
be used to interpret the claims.’’ (Underlining supplied for
emphasis.)
To ensure compliance with the said judgment of this Honourable Court (as
shown in EXHIBIT ‘‘3’’), on 15th June, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained the
Enrolled Judgment Order and by two separate letters all dated 19 th June,
2012 or thereabout, the Plaintiff served the said Enrolled Judgment Order
on the Defendants. We refer your Lordship to EXHIBIT ‘‘4’’.
By the said letters, the Plaintiff implored the Defendants to comply with the
judgment of this Honourable Court by abstaining from using the Plaintiff’s
patented Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or Electronic Collapsible
same for the conduct of any elections all over the Federal Republic of
Nigeria) EXCEPT with the prior consent, authority and/or license of the
Plaintiff to that effect as contained in the Judgments of the Court; failing
which the Plaintiff threatened to commence legal proceedings against the
Defendants.
In addition to the service of the Enrolled Judgment Order on the Defendants

by the Plaintiff, the said Judgment was reported in various media as news
item on 6th June, 2012; some of which are THE NATION and THE
56
GUARDIAN newspapers. The Plaintiff also published the said Enrolled
Judgment Order of this Honourable Court in various newspapers on
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 to the knowledge of all the Defendants herein and
the entire world. Please, see EXHIBIT ‘‘5’’.
It is also worthy of note that by EXHIBIT ‘‘6’’, this Honourable Court

awarded the judgment sum of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion,
Two Hundred and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty
Thousand Naira Only) in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants
therein (including the 3rd and 4th Defendants herein). The said judgment
sum represents the minimum royalty, by way of damages accruable to the
Plaintiff herein for the wanton infringement of the Plaintiff’s patented
products by the Defendants.
Again, by three separate letters all dated 12 th February, 2014, the Plaintiff
requested the Defendants therein (including the 3 rd and 4th Defendants
herein) to pay the judgment sum of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen
Twenty Thousand Naira Only) to the Plaintiff forthwith but the Defendants
failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the said judgment sum to the
Plaintiff till date despite the demands. We refer your Lordship to EXHIBIT
‘‘7’’.
Incidentally, the Defendants, who are in receipt of the respective letters of

demand from the Plaintiff, have failed, refused and/or neglected to satisfy
the judgment debt since Tuesday, 28th January, 2014 till date. Therefore,
the judgment debt of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two
Hundred and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand
Naira Only) still remains wholly unsatisfied by the Defendants till date
despite demands by the Plaintiff to that effect.
Surprisingly, while the said two judgments are still valid and subsisting till
date, the 1st and 2nd Defendants connived with the 4th Defendant (at the
behest, instance and instigation of the 3 rd Defendant) to issue and actually
issued the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101,
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014. By the said
Gazette, the Defendants are purporting to have revoked the Patents and
Designs rights of the Plaintiff. They purport to have divested the Plaintiff of
its adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over the Patents and Designs
listed in the said Official Gazette pursuant to the provisions of Paragraphs
15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs
Act. We refer your Lordship to EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’.
By the said Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101,
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014, the 1st and 2nd
57
Defendants purport to have revoked the Patents and Designs rights in and
over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette and
authorize the 3rd Defendant or any person(s) authorized by the 3 rd
Defendant ‘‘to purchase, make or vend any article embodying’’ the
Plaintiff’s inventions described in and covered by the Plaintiff’s Patents and
Designs specified in paragraph (a)(i)-(vii) of the said Official Gazette.
Curiously, the Defendants who took this action seriously affecting the
proprietary and exclusive rights of the Plaintiff in and over the said Patents
and Designs did not at any time give any notice of the purported revocation
of the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, the Defendants, who are indebted to the Plaintiff in the

judgment sum of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred
and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira
Only) have neither paid the said judgment sum nor compensated the
Plaintiff in any way before and even after the purported revocation of the
In the case of AMALE V. SOKOTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1012) 5 NWLR

(PT. 1292) S. C. PAGE 181 AT PAGES 201, PARAS. B-E, 205-206,
PARAS. E-B; RATIO 4 thereof, the Supreme Court held that:
‘‘Section 40(1) of the 1979 Constitution provided that no movable

property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken
possession of compulsorily and that no right over or interest in any
such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria
except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law,
which amongst other things:
(a) requires the prompt payment of compensation therefor; and
(b) gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of
access for the determination of his interest in the property and
the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or
body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.
The provisions of the section is very clear and unambiguous. It gave
a right of action to an aggrieved party whose property was
compulsorily acquired without compliance with the provisions of the
section. Where, however, the acquisition complied with the
provisions of the section, no cause of action accrued to the aggrieved
party as such action would be legal in the eyes of the law.’’
Again Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended), which is in

pari material with the provisions of Section 40(1) of the 1979 Constitution
(already reproduced above) provides thus:
‘‘44. (1)No movable property or any interest in an immovable property
shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or
interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in
58
any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes
prescribed by a law that, among other things-
(a) requires the prompt payment of compensation therefor; and
(b) gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of
access for the determination of his interest in the property and
the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body
having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.
Also, Section 25 (1) and (2) of the Patent and Designs Act expressly
provides thus:
‘‘25 (1) The rights of a patentee or design owner are infringed

if another person, without the licence of the patentee or design
owner, does or causes the doing of any act which that other
person is precluded from doing under section 6 or 9 of this Act,
as the case may be.
(2) An infringement of the rights of a patentee or design
owner shall be actionable at the suit of the patentee or design
owner in question; and in any action for such an infringement all
such relief by way of damages, injunction, accounts or otherwise
shall be available to the plaintiff as is available in any
corresponding proceedings in respect of the infringement of other
proprietary rights. (Underlining supplied for emphasis.)
Going by the provisions of section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution (As

Amended) and Section 25 (1) and (2) of the Patent and Designs Act, it is
clear that the Constitution empowers the Plaintiff to be entitled to adequate
and prompt compensation for the revocation of its Patents and Copy Right
Designs in dispute by the Defendants.
Interestingly, the 1st Defendant claims to have invoked the provisions of

Paragraph 15 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs
Act, to issue the said Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18
Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled –
(INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014.
By the said Gazette, the 1st and 2nd Defendants purport to have revoked the
Patents and Designs rights in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the
said Official Gazette and authorize the 3 rd Defendant or any person(s)
authorized by the 3rd Defendant ‘‘to purchase, make or vend any article
embodying’’ the Plaintiff’s inventions described in and covered by the
Plaintiff’s Patents and Designs specified in paragraph (a)(i)-(vii) of the said
Official Gazette.
Now, Sections 6 (1) (6) and 251 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended)
provide that:
‘‘6 (1) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution:
59
6 (1.) The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the
courts to which this section relates, being courts established for
the Federation.
6(6). The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing
provisions of this section-
(a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of the court of
law;
(b) shall extend to all matters between persons, or between

government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all
actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of
any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person;
‘‘251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution:
Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in this

Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may
be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the
Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the
exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters –
(f) any Federal enactment relating to copyright, patent,

designs, trade marks and passing-off, industrial designs and
merchandise marks business names, commercial and
industrial monopolies, combines and trusts, standards of
goods and commodities and industrial standards;’’
Section 26 of the Patent and Designs Act provides that:
‘‘26 (1) The jurisdiction to hear and dispose of legal proceedings

under this Act is hereby vested in the Federal High Court,
and subject to this Act, the provisions of the Trade Marks
Act applicable to legal proceedings under this Act shall
apply with the necessary modifications to legal proceedings
under this Act.
Conversely, Paragraph 15 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent

and Designs Act provides thus:
‘‘Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where a Minister is satisfied that

it is in the public interest to do so, he may authorise any person to
purchase, make, exercise or vend any patented article or invention for
the service of a government agency in the Federal Republic.’’

Act provides thus:
‘‘The authority of a Minister under paragraph 15 of this Schedule
may be given:-
60
(a) before or after the relevant patent has been granted.
(b) before or after the doing of the acts in respect of which the
authority is given; and
(c) to any person whether or not he is authorized directly or
indirectly by the patentee to make, use , exercise or vend the
relevant articles or invention.’’

Act provides thus:
‘‘Paragraphs 15 and 16 of this Schedule shall have effect so as to

exempt-
(e) the Government;
(f) any person authorized under those paragraphs;
(g) any supplier of the Government or of any such person; and
(h) any agent of any such supplier.
From liability for the infringement of any patent relating to the
relevant article or invention and from liability to make any payment
to the patentee by way of royalty or otherwise.’’
A community reading of the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part

II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act clearly shows that
if the 1st Defendant is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, he
may authorize any person (including private individuals) to ‘purchase,
make, exercise or vend any patented article or invention’ of the Plaintiff
for the service of a government agency in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It
also implies that the 1 st Defendant can do it before or after the patent has
been granted or the act of infringing the patentee’s exclusive right has been
done. And that such persons can ‘purchase, make, exercise or vend any
patented article or invention’ without compensating the patentee for the
use of such a patented article or invention. Thus, the provisions of
Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent
and Designs Act have the effect of mortgaging the economic and commercial
interest of a patentee in and over a patented product, article or invention
with another person and for the personal benefit of that other person.
We submit, with the greatest respect, that the provisions of Paragraphs 15,
16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act
which tend to empower the 1st Defendant to arbitrarily transfer the
commercial interest of a patentee to another person for the personal
commercial gains of that other person, who does not have the patent over
the said article or invention, cannot be said to be ‘in the public interest.’
They are draconian, obnoxious and oppressive provisions in the schedule to
the Patent and Designs Act which should not be allowed to stand in a
democratic setting like ours today.
Assuming, without conceding that the 1 st Defendant even has the powers
under Paragraph 15 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and
Designs Act to revoke the Plaintiff’s vested patent and Designs rights,
61
Act further enjoins the 1st Defendant to furnish the Plaintiff with the
relevant information relating to such purported revocation. This, the 1 st and
2nd Defendants also failed to do. The Plaintiff only got to know of the
purported revocation of its vested patents and Designs rights in and over the
said inventions listed in EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ through the Counter Affidavit of the
5th and 6th Defendants filed in a sister Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/685/2013 –
BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. COMRADE ADAMS OSHIOMHOLE (THE
EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF EDO STATE) & 6 ORS. In the said suit, the
3rd Defendant herein, as the 6th and 7th Defendants therein, were claiming
that the Plaintiff has been divested of its Patent and Designs right by the 1 st
Defendant. They then attached the Gazette to their Counter Affidavit as
Exhibit ‘‘1’’. That was how the Plaintiff got to know of the purported
revocation. The 1st – 3rd Defendants never informed the Plaintiff of the
purported revocation.
In the case of AFOLABI V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE (1985) 2 NWLR

(PT. 9) S.C. PAGE 734 AT PAGE 736-737, PARAS. G-D; RATIO 4 thereof,
the Supreme Court held that:
‘‘Statutes which encroach on the rights of the subject, whether in

relation to persons or property are regarded as Penal Act and are
subject to a strict construction. Such statutes are therefore to be
interpreted so as to respect such rights and any ambiguity in such
statute is usually resolved in favour of the freedom of the
individual.’’
It is our humble submission that the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and

17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act, which
tend to rob a patentee of the exclusive commercial and economic benefits
accruing from his/its hard-earned patented product/invention and give it to
another person to enjoy without compensating the creator of the invention
(the patentee) for the sweat of his/its labour, are, not only inconsistent with
the mandatory provisions of Sections 1(1), (3), 6, 36, 44 and 251 of the
1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Sections 6, and 25 of the Patent
and Designs Act (which provide for compensation), but also repugnant to
the principle of natural justice, equity and good conscience.
From the relevant Constitutional and statutory provisions as reproduced

above, it is our submission that this Honourable Court can invoke and
exercise its Constitutional and statutory powers under Sections 6 (6) and
251 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Section 26 of the
Patent and Designs Act to nullify and/or set aside the entire Federal
Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice
No. 24 dated 19th March, 2014 and titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR
ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014. This is because, the Gazette
which purports to have revoked the Patents and Designs rights of the
Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in
62
and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette, without
notifying and compensating the Plaintiff to that effect, is inferior and
inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 1(1), (3) and 44 of the 1999
Constitution (As Amended) and Sections 6 and 25 of the Patent and
Designs Act. Therefore, they are unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null,
void and of no effect whatsoever. This was unlawfully done by the
Defendants in clear contravention of the express and combined provisions of
Sections 1 (1), (3) and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and
Section 25 of the Patent and Designs Act.
This takes us to the sacrosanct provisions of Section 1(1) and (3) of the
1999 Constitution (As Amended) which stipulates that:
“1 (1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have

binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this
constitution, the constitution shall prevail and that other law shall
to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”
It is our further submission that the supremacy of the Constitution over

every other law in the country has been recognized and established by the
Supreme Court of Nigeria in the recently celebrated case of LAFIA LOCAL
GOVERNMENT V. GOVERNOR, NASARAWA STATE (1012) 17 NWLR (PT.
1328) S. C. PAGE 94 AT PAGE 142, PARAS. A-C; RATIO 7 thereof,
wherein the Supreme Court held that:
‘‘By virtue of section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the Constitution is supreme and its
provisions have binding force on all authorities and persons
throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. If any other law is
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution
shall prevail, and that law shall to the extent of the inconsistency,
be void. The courts as custodians of the supreme law and the
fundamental laws of the land jealously guard the supremacy of the
Constitution in its interpretation.’’
It is our further submission that from the foregoing, it is abundantly clear

that the provisions of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended)
and Section 25 of the Patent and Designs Act provide that a person
whose movable or immovable property (such as the Plaintiff’s Patent Rights
and Designs listed in EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’) is being compulsorily taken away by
the government should be adequately and promptly compensated. On the
contrary, the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the
First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act dictate to the contrary and
purport to divest a person of his proprietary rights and also deprive him of
the benefit of being compensated promptly and adequately. We therefore
submit that the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the
First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act are inconsistent with both
63
the mandatory provisions Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) and Section 25 of the Patent
and Designs Act which is the substantive and enabling law from which the
provision of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to
the Patent and Designs Act ought to have derived their legal potency.
Section 1(1) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) mandatorily
provides that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is supreme
and the grundnorm of all the laws of the country. If any other law is
inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, the constitution shall
prevail and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.
It is our further submission that it is trite law that the provisions of the
Schedule to an Act are inferior to the substantive provisions of the Act. This
is because the provisions in a schedule, being only procedural, confer no
right and cannot derogate from rights created by the statute itself.
Thus, in the case of TIMOTHY AONDOAKAA V. EMMANUEL AJO & 5 ORS.

(1999) 5 NWLR (PT. 602) C.A. PAGE 206 AT PAGE 225, PARAS. C-D;
RATIO 14 thereof, the Court dealt with the inferior nature of the provision
of a schedule to an Act to the main provisions of the same Act when it held
that:
‘‘The provisions in a schedule, being only procedural, confer no right

and cannot derogate from rights created by the statute itself. In the
instant case, the fact that the reliefs for fresh election was not
included in the appellant’s petition in line with paragraph 5 in
Schedule 5 to Decree No. 36 of 1998 does not prevent the tribunal
from exercising the mandatory powers conferred on it by the main
Decree to make an order for fresh elections. [Gbe v. Esewe (1988) 4
NWLR (Pt. 89) 435 referred to]’’ (Underlining supplied for
emphasis.)
On this position of the law, we also rely on the celebrated cases of ACTION
CONGRESS V. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (PT. 1048) PAGE 220 S.C.; AWUSE
V. ODILI (2004) 8 NWLR (PT. 876) PAGE 36 C.A.
From the totality of the foregoing arguments, we therefore urge this

Honourable Court to hold that the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17
of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act which the
Defendants invoked to issue the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official
Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th March,
ORDER, 2014 purporting to have revoked the Patents and Designs rights of
the Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights
in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette,
without notifying and compensating the Plaintiff to that effect, are inferior
and inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of Sections 1(1), (3) and
64
44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and Sections 6, and 25 of
the Patent and Designs Act (amongst other laws in that behalf).
We therefore urge this Honourable Court to so hold and resolve this issue
against the Respondents.
ISSUE TWO:
Whether by the proper and combined construction and interpretation of

Amended), Sections 6 and 25 of the Patent and Designs Act (amongst
other laws in that behalf), the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette
No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th March, 2014 and
titled – USE OF PATENTS FOR SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
(INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014
has the retrospective effect of revoking the Patents and Designs rights of the
Plaintiff and divesting the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in
and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes and the Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of Coded Metal
Plate) associated with the process and the application of the Direct Data
Capturing Machines for the procurement and compilation of the Voter’s
Register and depriving the Plaintiff of the enjoyment of the royalties
accruable to the Plaintiff by way of adjudged damages arising from the
multiple and monumental infringements of the Plaintiff’s said Patents and
Designs by the Defendants as listed in the said Official Gazette in violation
of the valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable Court earlier
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE REGISTRAR
OF PATENTS, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY &
ORS; and Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in Suit No.
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS. Respectively?
ARGUMENT:
It is already on record that the judgment in Suit No.

INDUSTRY & ORS. was delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 2012. We
invite this Honourable Court to look at EXHIBIT ‘‘3’’. By the said judgment
of this Honourable Court delivered on Tuesday, 5 th June, 2012, the Plaintiff
has been adjudged as the exclusive, bona fide and legitimate owner of the
said patented Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or Electronic Collapsible
same. The said judgment is still valid and subsisting till date.
Also, the judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING

65
COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS. was delivered on Tuesday, the 28th day of
January, 2014. We refer this Honourable Court to EXHIBIT ‘‘6’’.
By the said Judgment delivered as per EXHIBIT ‘‘6’’, this Honourable

Court also declared the Plaintiff as the exclusive owner of the patent rights
in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes and the Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of Coded Metal
Plate) associated with the process and the application of the Direct Data
Capturing Machines for the procurement and compilation of the Voter’s
Register. This Honourable Court also awarded the monetary cost of ₦17,
258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty Eight
Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only) being the
minimum reasonable royalty accruable to the Plaintiff for the production,
procurement, supply, acquisition, importation, procurement, purchase,
receipt, sale, of the Direct Data Capturing Machines, Laptops and/or any
other equipment ancillary to, or associated with the process and application
of the said products respectively for the registration of voters and/or the
collation/compilation and production of the Voter’s Register for the 2011
general elections or any other elections by the Defendants (particularly the
3rd and 4th Defendants) without first seeking and obtaining the written
license, consent and authority of the Plaintiff who is the bona fide
patentee of the Patent and Designs Rights in and over the process and
application of the said products respectively to produce the Voter’s Register.
This judgment is still valid and subsisting till date. The Defendants have not
paid the judgment sum to the Plaintiff.
Subsequently, precisely on 19th March, 2014, the Defendants issued the

NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014. We rely on
EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’.
A careful perusal of EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ clearly shows that the commencement

date is the 17th day of March, 2014. Since the dates on which the two
judgments were delivered are earlier than the date of commencement of the
Gazette, it therefore means that the said Gazette does not have the
retrospective effect on the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff in and over the
said Patents and Designs as confirmed by the two judgments.
In the case of AFOLABI V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE (1985) 2 NWLR

(PT. 9) S.C. PAGE 734 AT PAGE 736-737, PARAS. G-D; RATIOS 2, 17 &
24 thereof, the Supreme Court held that:
‘‘The courts have always leaned against giving statutes

retrospective effect and usually regard them as applying to facts or
matters which come into existence after the statutes were passed.
A statute is said to be retrospective when it takes away by clear
and unambiguous words or impairs any vested right acquired under
66
the existing laws, creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty or
attaches a new disability in respect to transaction or considerations
already past and closed.
A law is said to have retrospective effect when the date of

commencement is earlier in point of time than date of enactment.’’
It is our further submission that the proprietary rights vested in the Plaintiff
as the bona fide and exclusive owner of the said Patents and Designs rights
under reference, which were granted to the Plaintiff by the 1 st and 2nd
Defendants prior to the enactment of this obnoxious and draconian Gazette
on 19th March, 2014, will not be affected by the subsequent issuance of
EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’. Therefore, it stands to reason that in spite of EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’,
the Defendants are still indebted to the Plaintiff in the said judgment sum of
₦17,258,820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty Eight
Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only) and other
royalties accruable to the Plaintiff for the infringement of its Patent and
Designs rights in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes and the Proof of
Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of Coded
Metal Plate) associated with the process and the application of the Direct
Data Capturing Machines for the procurement and compilation of the
Voter’s Register. These are already existing rights vested in the Plaintiff by
the 1st and 2nd Defendants as confirmed by the two judgments of this
Honourable Court before the issuance of EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’.
In the case of ELERAN V. ADERONPE (2008) 11 NWLR (PT. 1097) C.A.

PAGE 50 AT PAGES 75-76, PARAS. H-A; RATIO 11 thereof, the Court
held that:
‘‘It is the law that rights, which have vested will not be affected by
subsequent change in policy, decision or even the law. [Lipede v.
Sonekan (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 374) 668 referred to]’’
Furthermore, assuming, without conceding, that EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ has the legal
force of abrogating the vested right or take away proprietary rights of the
Plaintiff commencing from the 17th day of March, 2014, the Defendants are
also enjoined by law to compensate the Plaintiff adequately and promptly to
that effect. Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and
Section 25 of the Patent and Designs Act (already reproduced and
canvassed above) are clear on this point.
In the case of AFOLABI V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE (SUPRA) AT PAGE

736-737, PARAS. G-D; RATIO 5 thereof, the Supreme Court held that:
‘‘A statute does not retrospectively abrogate vested right or take

away proprietary rights without making provisions for
compensation.’’
67
PAGE 50 AT PAGE 78, PARA. G; RATIO 8 thereof, the Court held that:
‘‘Where revocation of a right of occupancy is based on breach of

terms of the certificate of occupancy, the holder of the right of
occupancy must be accorded fair hearing prior the revocation.’’
We further submit, with respect, that the issuance of EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ by the
Defendants in the face of the two valid and subsisting judgments of this
Honourable Court – EXHIBITS ‘‘3’’ AND ‘‘6’’ respectively is a wanton
violation of the cardinal principle of rule of law. This is because, what the
Defendants did with the issuance of the said Gazette - EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ was an
attempt to override and undermine the potency of the two valid and
subsisting judgments of this Honourable Court. Therefore, this action
affords this Honourable Court the opportunity of ensuring that all branches
of government - the legislature, the executive and the judiciary conform with
the principles of the rule of law by obeying and abiding by the judgments of
the Courts of our land to the latter. The Defendants who belong to the
executive arm of the government of Nigeria should not be left out. They must
obey and abide by the valid and subsisting judgments of this Honourable
Court – EXHIBITS ‘‘3’’ AND ‘‘6’’.
In the case of COMPTROLLER, NIGERIA PRISON SERVICE, IKOYI LAGOS

& 2 ORS. V. DR. FEMI ADEKANYE 7 17 ORS. (1999) 5 NWLR (PT. 602)
C.A. PAGE 167 AT PAGE 178, PARAS. C-D; RATIO 7 thereof, the Court
reiterated the need for all arms of government to conform with the
sacrosanct principles of the rule of law when it held that:
‘‘Judges and courts bear a particular responsibility for ensuring that

all branches of government - the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary conform with the principles of the rule of law. And where
the provisions of the Constitution are clear, strict compliance with
them is not negotiable nor can it be circumscribed.’’
We therefore urge this Honourable Court to resolve this case in favour of the
Plaintiff and hold that the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette
does not have the retrospective effect of revoking the Patents and Designs
rights of the Plaintiff. Thus, it cannot divest the Plaintiff of its adjudged
exclusive patent rights in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes and the
Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept
of Coded Metal Plate) associated with the process and the application of
the Direct Data Capturing Machines for the procurement and compilation of
the Voter’s Register. Consequently, the Defendants cannot deprive the
Plaintiff of the enjoyment of the royalties accruable to the Plaintiff by way of
adjudged damages arising from the multiple and monumental infringements
of the Plaintiff’s said Patents and Designs by the Defendants as listed in the
68
said Official Gazette in violation of the valid and subsisting Judgments of
this Honourable Court earlier delivered on Tuesday, the 5 th day of June,
2012 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V.
THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE &
ISSUE THREE:
Whether by the proper and combined construction and interpretation of

Amended), Sections 6, 25, 26 and Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of
the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act, (amongst other laws in
that behalf), the Defendants can issue the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Official Gazette No. 18 Vol. 101, Government Notice No. 24 dated 19 th
COMMISSION) ORDER, 2014 purporting to have revoked the Patents and
Designs rights of the Plaintiff and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged
exclusive patent rights in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said
Official Gazette in violation of the valid and subsisting Judgments of this
Honourable Court earlier delivered on Tuesday, the 5 th day of June, 2012 in
Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE
NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ORS. Respectively?
ARGUMENT:
There is no doubt that the Plaintiff acquired the Patent and Designs right in
and over the inventions listed in EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ by the Defendants. These
inventions form the subject matter of this action. The Plaintiff’s vested right
in and over the said inventions is being given ostensible recognition by the
Defendants over the years. The undisputed fact that the 1 st Defendant
issued EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ purporting to divest the Plaintiff of the vested Patent
and Designs rights in and over the inventions is an acknowledgement of the
recognition of the exclusive patent and Designs rights of the Plaintiff. This is
particularly so when the vested rights of the Plaintiff in this regard have
been confirmed by the two judgments of this Honourable Court. We rely on
EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ AND ‘‘6’’. Again, EXHIBITS ‘‘4’’, ‘‘5’’ AND ‘‘7’’ also show
that the Defendants are very much aware of the said judgments of this
Honourable Court which have adjudged the Plaintiff as the exclusive and
bona fide owner of the vested Patent and Designs rights in and over the said
inventions. The law is trite to the effect that when a party acquires a vested
right by ostensible recognition, the person who gives such recognition is
estopped from denying the existence of the right and depriving the owner of
such vested rights the enjoyment of same.
69
PAGE 50 AT PAGE 76, PARAS. A-B; RATIO 12 thereof, the Court held
that:
‘‘When a party acquires a vested right by ostensible recognition, the

person who gives such recognition is estopped from denying the
existence of the right. [Oyeyemi v. Commissioner for LG. Kwara
State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 226) 661 referred to]’’
Regrettably, the Plaintiff was never given any notice of the purported
revocation of the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff either before or
after the purported revocation of the Patents and Designs rights of the
Plaintiff in and over the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official
Gazette.
The Defendants, who are jointly and severally indebted to the Plaintiff in the
judgment sum of ₦17, 258, 820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred
and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira
Only) have neither paid the said judgment sum nor compensated the
Plaintiff in any way before and even after the purported revocation of the
We therefore submit that the Defendants cannot issue EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’

purporting to have revoked the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff
and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over
the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette. Doing so after the
judgments have been obtained against them will amount to a wanton
violation of the cardinal principle of rule of law. This can lead to anarchy
with the ripple effect of neutralizing the otherwise potent judicial powers of
this Honourable Court. We rely on the case of COMPTROLLER, NIGERIA
PRISON SERVICE, IKOYI LAGOS & 2 ORS. V. DR. FEMI ADEKANYE 7
17 ORS. (SUPRA).
Thus, it is our humble submission that the provisions of Paragraph 15 of

Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act which the 1st
Defendant relied on in issuing EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ is inconsistent with both the
mandatory provisions of Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) and Section 25 of the Patent
and Designs Act which is the substantive and enabling law from which the
provision of Paragraph 15 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent
and Designs Act ought to have derived its legal potency.
Now, Section 6 (1) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution provide that:
‘‘6 (1) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution:
70
6 (1.)The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in
the courts to which this section relates, being courts
established for the Federation.
6 (6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the
foregoing provisions of this section-
(a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
this Constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of the
court of law;
(b) shall extend to all matters between persons, or between

government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to
all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the
determination of any question as to the civil rights and
obligations of that person;
We therefore urge this Honourable Court to invoke its Constitutional powers

under Section 6(1), (6) and 251 of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended)
and Section 26 of the Patent and Designs Act and hold that the
Defendants cannot issue the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette
purporting to have revoked the Patents and Designs rights of the Plaintiff
and divested the Plaintiff of its adjudged exclusive patent rights in and over
the Patents and Designs listed in the said Official Gazette. This is a wanton
violation of the said valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable
Court forming the subject matter of this action.
We respectfully and strongly urge this Honourable Court to so hold and

resolve this issue in favour of the Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION:
In the final analysis, we therefore urge this Honourable Court to grant the reliefs
being sought by the Plaintiff in this case on the strength of all the facts,
documentary evidence and authorities cited before Your Lordship for the following
reasons, amongst others:
(1.) The provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First

Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act are inconsistent with the
mandatory provisions of both Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) and Section 25 of
the Patent and Designs Act which is the substantive and enabling law
from which the provision of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of
the First Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act ought to have
derived their legal potency.
(2.) The provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First

Schedule to the Patent and Designs Act are unconstitutional,
71
unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever for being inconsistent
with the mandatory provisions of both Section 44(1) of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) and
Section 25 of the Patent and Designs Act
(3.) EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ which has a commencement date of 17th March, 2014
does not have the retrospective effect of divesting the Plaintiff of its
vested Patent and Designs rights in and over the patented inventions
listed in EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ which have been confirmed by the two
judgments of this Honourable Court earlier delivered on 5th June, 2012
and 28th January, 2014 respectively.
(4.) The 1st Defendant cannot divest the Plaintiff of its patented vested
rights without adequately and promptly compensating the Plaintiff to
that effect as prescribed by the mandatory provisions of Section 44(1)
of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As
Amended) and Section 25 of the Patent and Designs Act.
(5.) The Defendants will not in any way be prejudiced by the grant of the
reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff.
DATED this ……….. day of May, 2016

…..……………………………
OLUSOJI TOKI, LL.M.
JOHN OKORIKO ESQ.
TOKILEGAL
WUSE ZONE 4,
ABUJA
08033282935,
08028323432
FOR SERVICE ON:

OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.

72
OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.


SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
ABUJA.
73
HOLDEN AT ABUJA.

BETWEEN:
AND

COMMISSION (INEC)
LIST OF AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
1. AMALE V. SOKOTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1012) 5 NWLR (PT.

1292) S. C. PAGE 181 AT PAGES 201, PARAS. B-E, 205-206,
PARAS. E-B; RATIO 4;
2. AFOLABI V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 9) S.C.

PAGE 734 AT PAGE 736-737, PARAS. G-D; RATIOS 2, 4, 17 & 24
thereof;
3. LAFIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT V. GOVERNOR, NASARAWA STATE

(1012) 17 NWLR (PT. 1328) S. C. PAGE 94 AT PAGE 142, PARAS. A-
C; RATIO 7 thereof;
4. TIMOTHY AONDOAKAA V. EMMANUEL AJO & 5 ORS. (1999) 5

NWLR (PT. 602) C.A. PAGE 206 AT PAGE 225, PARAS. C-D; RATIO
14 thereof;
5. ACTION CONGRESS V. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (PT. 1048) PAGE 220

S.C.;
6. AWUSE V. ODILI (2004) 8 NWLR (PT. 876) PAGE 36 C.A;
7. ELERAN V. ADERONPE (2008) 11 NWLR (PT. 1097) C.A. PAGE 50

AT PAGES 75-76, PARAS. H-A; RATIO 11 thereof;
8. COMPTROLLER, NIGERIA PRISON SERVICE, IKOYI LAGOS & 2

ORS. V. DR. FEMI ADEKANYE 7 17 ORS. (1999) 5 NWLR (PT. 602)
C.A. PAGE 167 AT PAGE 178, PARAS. C-D; RATIO 7 thereof;
74
DATED this ……… day of May, 2016.
…..……………………………
OLUSOJI TOKI, LL.M.
JOHN OKORIKO ESQ.
TOKILEGAL
WUSE ZONE 4,
ABUJA
08033282935,
08028323432
FOR SERVICE ON:

OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.

OLD SECRETARIAT,
AREA 1, GARKI,
ABUJA.


SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
ABUJA.
75
We spoke. Please find attached the electronic copy of the Originating
Summons filed in the previous case. After reading the Judgement, we can
block all the loopholes and amend with the ideas I have hinted you about;
vis: (i) explain the individuality of each judgments and give particulars of
each patent, especially in Case 82, which was won with an Originating
Summons, hence making it a declaratory judgment though enforceable; (ii)
explain the nature of the Writ of Summons Judgment in Case 816 and give
particulars of the 2 patents combined to secure the N17.3B judgments; (iii)
alternatively monetary relief should the Judge not be disposed to setting
aside and/nullifying the revocation of the Patents.
has the retrospective effect of revoking the Patents and Designs rights of the
Plaintiff and divesting the Plaintiff of its by way of adjudged damages arising
from the multiple and monumental infringements of the Plaintiff’s said
Patents and Designs by the Defendants as listed in the said Official Gazette
in violation of the valid and subsisting Judgments of this Honourable Court
earlier delivered on Tuesday, the 5th day of June, 2012 in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V. THE REGISTRAR
OF PATENTS, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY &
ORS; and Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 in Suit No.
76

Bedding v. Minister (Case 330)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Bedding v. Minister (Case 330)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bedding v. Minister (Case 330)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

SUIT NO. FHC/ABJ/CS/330/2016.

BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED…………………………………..….….PLAINTIFF

1. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER, FEDERAL MINISTRY

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW TO THE 3RD

On whether the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the 1 st Schedule

At pages 5 – 6 of the 3rd Defendant’s written address, the 3rd Defendant

It is our humble submission that a combined construction and interpretation of

In the case of NDIC V. OKEM ENTERPRISES LTD (2004) 4 SC (PT. II)

‘‘It is trite law that the general principles of interpretation of

On the Supremacy of the provisions of Section 25 of the Patent and Designs

Interestingly, by virtue of the provision of Section 25 of the Patent and

‘‘25 (1)The rights of a patentee or design owner are infringed if

(2) An infringement of the rights of a patentee or design owner

Subsequently, Paragraph 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Patent

‘‘Paragraphs 15 and 16 of this Schedule shall have effect so as to

In the case of TIMOTHY AONDOAKAA V. EMMANUEL AJO & 5 ORS.

‘‘The provisions in a schedule, being only procedural, confer no

It is therefore our humble submission that the provisions of Paragraphs 15, 16

Consequently, Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of Part II of the First Schedule to

Therefore, by virtue of the provision of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution

We urge this Honourable Court to so hold.

On whether the authority of MOHAMMED V. OLAWUNMI (1993) 4

At pages 6 – 7 of the 3rd Defendant’s written address, the 3rd Defendant

It would be recalled that it is by these two separate judgments of this

It is our further submission that the authority of MOHAMMED V.

This is particularly so when the Defendants, particularly the 3 rd Defendant, (who

Secondly, the subject-matter of this action is for this Honourable Court to

Thus, the authority of MOHAMMED V. OLAWUNMI (1993) 4 NWLR (PT.

On whether the purported revocation of the Plaintiff’s Patents and Designs

We urge this Honourable Court to so hold and discountenance it.

Interestingly, by contents of EXHIBIT ‘‘8’’ and the provisions of Paragraphs

We also respectfully adopt the totality of our arguments on these points as

DATED this 4th day of July, 2016.

1. THE 1ST DEFENDANT,

2. THE 2ND DEFENDANT,

3. THE 3RD DEFENDANT,

4. THE 4TH DEFENDANT,

SUIT NO. FHC/ABJ/CS/330/2016.

BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED….……………….….PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

5. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO THE 3RD DEFENDANT/APPLICANT’S

I, CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE, NPOM, FSM. Adult, Male,

1. I am the Group Executive Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of the

2. I have the consent and authority of the Plaintiff to depose to this

3. In response to paragraph 3 of the Applicant’s affidavit in support of the

5. In response to paragraph 6 of the Applicant’s affidavit in support of the

7. In further response to paragraph 7 of the Applicant’s affidavit in

8. In further response to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Applicant’s affidavit

(i) RP No. 10511, for Collapsible Steel Frame Structures;

9. I know as a fact that on the strength of the said Federal Republic of

16. That I, CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE, do solemnly and

SUIT NO. FHC/ABJ/CS/330/2016.

BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED….……………….….PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

1. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF

PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN OPPOSING THE 3 RD

In opposing the said application, the Plaintiff /Respondent filed a Counter

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: