Bedding Holdings New Originating Summons

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

HOLDEN AT ABUJA
SUIT NO.FHC/ABJ/CS/ /2020.
BETWEEN
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED………...…….....PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
AND
1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL

COMMISSION (INEC)
2. CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT NATIONAL

ELECTORAL COMMISSION
..DEFENDANTS/
3. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS &DESIGNS, FEDERAL RESPONDENTS
MINISTRY OF TRADE & INVESTMENT
4. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION &

MINISTER OF JUSTICE
ORIGINATING MOTION
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 43, 44 (1) (a) & (b), OF THE

1919 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
NIGERIA (AS AMENDED); SECTIONS 1 (b) & 3 (3) (a) & (b), 6 (1)
(a & b) & 2, 10 1&2 (a),19 (1) (a), (b) & (c) AND 25, (1), (2), (3) (a) &
(b), OF THE PATENT AND DESIGNS ACT, CAP. P2, LAWS OF
THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA, 2004, ORDER 44 OF THE
FEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2019
AND UNDER THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court shall be moved on the

………………….day of ………….2020 at the hour of 9 O’clock in the
forenoon or so soon thereafter as the Counsel may be heard on behalf of the
Plaintiff/Applicant praying this Honourable Court for the following
reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION THAT the Judgments and Orders of this

Honourable Court, delivered on the 5th Day of June, 2012 and 28 th
Day of January, 2014 in Suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and
1
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 respectively are valid, subsisting and
binding on the Defendants/ Respondents, particularly the 1 st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents in so far as they have not been varied,
vacated, set-aside and/or overturned by an Appellate Court till date.
2. A DECLARATION THAT the Defendants/Respondents,

particularly the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents; who have
continuously used the patented products and concepts of the
Plaintiff/Applicant and/or their brazen refusal to comply and/or abide
by the Judgments and Orders of this Honourable Court delivered on
the 5th Day of June, 2012 and 28th Day of January, 2014 in Suit
Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010
respectively; stand in contempt of law and court and is consequently
inconsistent with the rule of law and therefore illegal, unlawful,
unconstitutional, null and void.
3. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff/Applicant pursuant to the

provisions of Sections 10 (1) & (2) a & b of the Patent and Designs
Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, Cap. P2, Laws
of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 under the License of Rights, is
the only authorized body entitled to issue out licenses to any
person(s) and/or company, for the production and/or manufacture,
importation sale, supply, utilization or repair of the Collapsible Steel
Frame Structures including Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB)
otherwise called Voting Cubicles (VC); Transparent Ballot Boxes
(TBB) and/or the Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot
Boxes (ECTBB), which integral part consists of the Electronic Card
Reader (ECR), also known and called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or
Optical Card Reader (OCR); the process and application of the
Direct Data Capturing Machines (DDCM) and/or equipment
ancillary to, or associated with the process and application of
using the products to generate data for the Voters’ Register
and/or its Continuous Collation/ Compilation for the Voters’
Registration Exercise therefrom, or any obvious imitation thereof to
the exclusion of all others.
4. A DECLARATION that based on the subsisting Judgments and

Orders of this Honourable Court in Suits Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11
and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on 5th Day of June, 2012 and
28th Day of January, 2014 respectively, every new use and
subsequent use after the said subsisting Judgments/Orders
constitutes a new, fresh and wanton breach of the said patented
products and concepts, of the Plaintiff’s/Applicant’s patented rights
2
and commercial existence WITHOUT the written consent and
express license of the Plaintiff/Applicant as the bona-fide owner of
the patented products and concepts of the various Patents and
Copyright Designs as contained in the said subsisting Judgments
and Orders and thereof actionable and deserving of General,
Special, Exemplary and Aggravated Damages in favour of the
Plaintiff/Applicant.
5. A DECLARATION that pursuant to the subsisting Judgment and

Orders of this Honourable Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11
delivered on the 5th day of June, 2012, especially by virtue of its
Enrolled Judgment Orders – particularly reliefs nos. 1, 3, 6 & 7;
to the extent that all general elections and various bye-elections of
years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019; conducted using the patented
products and concepts of the Plaintiff/Applicant by the 1 st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents, WITHOUT the written consent and
express license of the Plaintiff/Applicant who is the bona-fide
owner of the Patents & Copyright Designs; stand in contempt of
law and court pursuant to Section 25 (1) and (2) of the Patent and
Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and
are consequently inconsistent with the rule of law and therefore
illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.
6. A DECLARATION THAT pursuant to the subsisting Judgment

and Orders of this Honourable Court in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on the 28th Day of January,
2014; especially by virtue of its subsisting Enrolled Judgment
Orders – particularly reliefs nos. 1 & 4, all General elections and
the various bye-elections of years 2015 and 2019 conducted using
the Patented Products and Concepts of the Plaintiff/Applicant by the
1st& 2nd Defendants/Respondents, WITHOUT the written consent
and express license of the bona-fide owner of the Patents&
Copyright Designs; stand in contempt of law and court pursuant to
Section 25 (1) and (2) of the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and are consequently
inconsistent with the rule of law and therefore illegal, unlawful,
7. A DECLARATION that by virtue and express provisions of

Sections 1(b) & 3(3) (i, ii, iii) and 3(b) (i& ii) of the Patent and
Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
under Patentable Inventions & Patent Applications and more
especially by virtue of the aftermath Enrolled Judgment Orders
3
– particularly Relief No. 3 of this Honourable Court in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 delivered on 5th day of June, 2012 and the
aftermath of the subsequent Enrolled Judgment Orders–
particularly relief no. 1 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010
delivered on 28th Day of January, 2014 respectively, the
Plaintiff/Applicant is also the bona-fide owner/patentee in and over
the Electronic Card Reader (ECR), also known and called Smart
Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR), which is an
integral part of the Enhanced and Improved derivative of the
Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) called Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) with Patent Right Certificate
No.RP16642 and Copyright Designs Certificate No.RD13841, as
encapsulated in the Claims, Literature, Specifications/Schematic
Diagrams of the afore-stated Patents & Copyright Designs; being the
condition precedent for the grant of the aforesaid Patent & Copyright
Design Certificates issued by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent in this
respect.
8. A DECLARATION that the use of the Smart Card Reader (SCR),

Electronic Card Reader (ECR), also known and called Optical
Card Reader (OCR) by the Defendants/Respondents for the
General elections years, from 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019 and all
future elections, in line with the express provisions of Sections 1(b)
& 3(3) (i, ii, iii) and 3(b) (I & ii) of the Patent and Designs Act,
Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and especially in
the aftermath of the subsisting Judgments and Orders of this
Honourable Court, by virtue of the aftermath subsisting Enrolled
Judgment Orders – particularly Relief No. 3 of this Honourable
Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 delivered on the 5th day of
June, 2012 and the aftermath of the subsisting Enrolled Judgment
Orders– particularly Relief No. 1 in Suit No.
th
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on 28 day of January, 2014
respectively; without first obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written
consent, license or agreement, which action(s) stand in contempt
with the rule of law and court and are invariably an infringement of
the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patent and Industrial Design Rights as
protected by the Patents and Design Act Section 25 (1) and (2) of
the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria 2004 and which acts are therefore illegal and unlawful.
9. A DECLARATION that the continuous use of the Transparent

Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or the Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) by the
4
Defendants/Respondents, which integral part consists of the
Electronic Card Reader (ECR), also known and called Smart Card
Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR); the Voters’ Register
and/or the Continuous Collation/ Compilation and Production of the
Voters’ Register, using the Direct Data Capturing Machines
(DDCM) for data collection and registrations of the voters and its
derivable database and associated implements therefrom, which
subject Patented Products and Concepts are consistent with the
subsisting Judgments and Orders of this Honourable Court in Suit
Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on
the 5th day of June, 2012 and 28 th day of January, 2014
respectively, in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant stands in contempt
of law and court and are consequently inconsistent with the rule of
law as enshrined in Section 44 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (As
Amended) and Section 25 (1) and (2) of the Patents and Designs
Act, Cap P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; which acts
are illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void, without the
prior written and express license, consent, authority and/or approval
of the Plaintiff/Applicant first sought and obtained.
10. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff/Applicant is the sole and duly

registered owner of all Patent and Industrial Design Rights in
Collapsible Steel Frame Structures, including Collapsible Polling
Booths (CPB) otherwise named Voting Cubicles (VC) or any
obvious imitation thereof by virtue of Certificate of Patent
Registration No. RP. 10511 dated the 31st of March, 1989, duly
issued to it by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent and Certificate of
Industrial Design Registration No. RD. 13840 dated the 11 th of
December 2006 to expire on the 22nd of November, 2011 and
Certificate of Industrial Design registration No. RD. 13840 dated
30th of April 2018 duly issued to it by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent
to expire on 2nd of November, 2021.
11. A DECLARATION that the importation, sale, supply, utilization or

repair of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures including
Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise called Voting
Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof by the
Defendants/Respondents or any person and/or Corporate body
WITHOUT first obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent,
license and/or agreement is an infringement of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patent and Industrial Design Rights as protected
by the Patents and Designs Act, Section 25 (1) and (2) of the
5
Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria 2004 and therefore illegal.
12. AN ORDER directing the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to

obtain the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent, license or
agreement to enable it properly and legally award contracts for the
supply and acquisition of Collapsible Steel Frame Structures
including Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise called
Voting Cubicles (VC) or any of the other patented products
and/concepts of the Plaintiff/Applicant; or any obvious imitation
thereof as provided for under Section 25 (1) & (2) of the Patent
and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria
2004.
13. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the

1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to register the award of contracts in
respect of Collapsible Steel Frame Structures including
Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof with the
Plaintiff/Applicant, retrospectively and regularize infractions of
previous and continuous electoral processes conducted, using this
patented product in violation of the express provisions pursuant to
Sections 10 (1) & (2) a & b of the Patent and Designs Act, Cap.
P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 under License of
Rights as provided; in order to bring same within conformity in law
and in compliance with the precedent of the subsisting Judgments
and Orders of this Honorable Court, specifically for the 2007, 2011,
2015 and 2019 general elections including but not limited to the
Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa States elections,
held on 16th November, 2019 and future elections thereto.
14. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the

st
Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1 & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents either by themselves or through any of their
agents, representatives or privies from manufacturing, importing,
selling, stocking, supplying or utilizing any product reproducing the
design of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures including
Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise named Voting
Cubicles (VC) or any of the other patented products and/concepts
of the Plaintiff/Applicant or any obvious imitation thereof,
WITHOUT first obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent,
license and/or agreement.
6
15. AN ORDER COMPELLING the Defendants/Respondents,
particularly the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to register
retrospectively and regularize the CONTINUOUS ACT, which
constitutes CONTINUOUS BREACH of using the patented
products and concepts of the Patents and Design Rights of the
Plaintiff/Applicant covered by the subsisting Enrolled Judgments
Orders of this Honourable Court, delivered on the 5th day of June,
2012 and 28th Day of January, 2014 in Suit Nos.
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 respectively; in
order to bring the previous and continuous electoral processes
conducted, using these patented products and concepts in
violation of the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 2004 in conformity with the law which
elections encompass both the general and bye-elections for periods
listed as follows: (i) Years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019
Presidential Elections; (ii) years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019
Senatorial & House of Representative Elections; (iii) years 1999,
2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 Governorship & State House of
Assembly Elections; (iv) The bye-elections arising from years
1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019, as it relates specifically to the
infringements on the use and continued use of Transparent
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), which integral part consists of
Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR); (v) the use and
the continued use of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures
Voting Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof from/since
2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019 general elections including but not
limited to the Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa
States, held on Saturday 16th November, 2019 and any future
elections AND (vi) the use and the continued use, process and
application of the Direct Data Capturing Machines (DDCM)
and/or equipment ancillary to, or associated with the process and
application of using the products to generate data for the Voters’
Register and/or its Continuous Collation/ Compilation for the
Voters’ Registration Exercise for the general elections of years 2015
and 2019 and all future elections, respectively.

render accounts to the Plaintiff/Applicant pursuant to Order 44 of
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, for its illegal
use of 36,000 units amounting to N900,000,000.00 of Collapsible
7
Steel Frame Structures including Collapsible Polling Booths
(CPB) otherwise called Voting Cubicles (VC) or any obvious
imitation thereof for the 2007 elections and the subsequent
budgetary appropriation for N3, 000, 000, 000. 00 for the 2011
elections and the subsequent new purchases for the 2015 and 2019
general elections including but not limited to its use in the
Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa States, held on
Saturday, 16th November, 2019 and any future elections without
first obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent, license or
agreement as protected by the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and which acts are
therefore illegal.

render accounts to the Plaintiff/Applicant pursuant to Order 44 Rule
of Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, for its illegal
use of 340,000 units of Transparent Ballot Boxes in its possession
and custody and the outstanding of 160,000 units of the 500,000
allowed in the License granted to them from 29th of March 2003;
also for the additional 450,000 units of Transparent Ballot Boxes
(TBB) and/or Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes
(ECTBB) purchased for the 2007 General Elections and including
the continuous use of earlier purchased boxes and the new
purchases made for the 2011, 2015 and 2019 General elections and
any other future elections, especially in the aftermath of the
subsisting Judgment and Orders of this Honourable Court in Suit
No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011, which was delivered on 5th day of
June, 2012 without; first obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written
consent, license or agreement after the expiration of License earlier
granted had expired since 29th March, 2003, which action(s)
stands in contempt with the rule of law and court and are invariably
an infringement of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patent and Industrial
Design Rights as protected by the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and which act(s) are
therefore illegal.

of Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, for its illegal
use of the Smart Card Reader (SCR), the Electronic Card
Reader (ECR), also known and called Optical Card Reader
(OCR) purchased for the General elections of years 2007, 2011,
2015 and the 2019 and other elections including bye-elections, more
8
especially in the aftermath of the subsisting Judgment and Orders of
this Honourable Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011, which
was delivered on 5th Day of June, 2012,WITHOUT; first obtaining
the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent, license or agreement, which
action(s) stands in contempt with the rule of law and court and are
invariably an infringement of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patent and
Industrial Design Rights as protected by the Patent and Designs
Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and which
act(s) are therefore illegal.

of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, for its
illegal use of the processes and applications of the Direct Data
Capturing Machines (DDCM) and/or equipment ancillary to, or
associated implements with the process and application of using
the products to generate data for the Voters’ Register and/or its
Continuous Collation/ Compilation for the Voters’ Registration
Exercise for the General elections of years 2015 and 2019 and all
future elections respectively, especially in the aftermath of the
subsisting Judgment and Orders of this Honourable Court in Suit
No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010, which was delivered on 28th of
January, 2014 without first obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s
written consent, license or agreement in compliance with the
aforesaid Judgment/Orders, which action(s) stands in contempt of
law and court and consequently inconsistent with the rule of law and
as protected by Section 25(1) and (2) of the Patent and Designs
Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and which
act(s) are therefore illegal.
20. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents, especially the

1st& 2nd Defendants/Respondents to register the said licenses as
already confirmed by the subsisting Judgments/Orders of this
Honourable Court in Suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 respectively, as the patented products of the
Plaintiff/Applicant in line with the express provisions of Sections 10
(1) & (2) a & b of the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 2004 under the License of Rights to wit:
elections encompassing both the General and bye-elections for
periods listed as follows: (i) Years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019
Presidential Elections; (ii) years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019
Senatorial & House of Representative Elections; (iii) years 1999,
2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 Governorship & State House of
9
Assembly Elections; (iv) The bye-elections arising from years
1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 and any future elections, as it relates
specifically to the infringements on the use and continued use of the
Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or the Electronic
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), which integral
part consists of the Electronic Card Reader (ECR), also known and
called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR); (v)
the use and the continued use of the Collapsible Steel Frame
Structures including Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise
called Voting Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof
from/since 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019 General elections including
but not limited to the upcoming Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi
and Bayelsa States, held on for 16th November, 2019 and any future
elections and (vi) the use and continued use, process and
application of the Direct Data Capturing Machines (DDCM)
and/or equipment ancillary to, or associated implements with the
process and application of using the products to generate data
for the Voters’ Register and/or its Continuous Collation/
Compilation for the Voters’ Registration Exercise for the general
elections of years 2015 and 2019 and all future elections,
respectively.
21. AN DECLARATION that the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to be

paid a reasonable licensing/royalty fees of between 25%, 35%
and/or 50% of the contract cost of each unit licensed patented
product/concept to be used and/or to produce, manufacture, import,
sell, stock, supply or utilizing any product by the 1 st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents themselves or through any of their agents,
representatives or privies from reproducing the design of the
Plaintiff/Applicant; which was already established by judicial
precedent in the subsisting Judgment/Orders of this Honourable
Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on the 28th of
January, 2014 and in accordance with the custom relating to grant
of patents pursuant to Section 25(2) of the Patent and Designs Act,
Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 by Patent and
Designs/Intellectual Property Right owners and by World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and International
Trade Organization (ITO) standards.
22. A DECLARATION THAT the omission, neglect, refusal and/or

deliberate and/or wanton disregard of the valid and subsisting Order
of this Honourable Court in a Garnishee proceedings and the
subsequent Order arising therefrom directing the
10
Defendants/Respondents, especially the 1st Defendant to deposit the
Judgment debt of “…N17, 258,820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two
Hundred and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty
thousand Naira Only) debt (or damage) and N…..for costs….”
with this Honourable Court as ordered in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS
492/2018 is a disobedience of the order of court and
contemptuous of the Defendants/Respondents and stands in
contempt of law and court and consequently inconsistent with the
rule of law and therefore illegal and unlawful, especially by the act(s)
of the 1st Defendant; the result of which robs them of the right of
audience before the Honourable Court and neither can this
Honourable Court exercise its discretion in their favour in this suit.
23. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the

Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents to pay the Plaintiff/Applicant the sum of
₦47,987,369,933.50 (Forty-Seven Billion, Nine Hundred and
Eighty Seven Million, Three Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand,
Nine Hundred and Thirty-Three Naira, fifty Kobo Only) being
the 50% of the cumulative sum of ₦ 95,974,739,867.00 (Ninety-
Five Billion, Nine Hundred and Seventy Seventy-Four Million,
Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred and
Sixty-Seven Naira Only) as Specific and Special Damages
derived from the yearly itemized breakdown of Budget
Expenditure for years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2019
being the minimum reasonable licensing/royalty fees accruable to the
Plaintiff/Applicant and for the usage, continuous breach and
further acts of the usage and/or further using of the Transparent
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), which integral part consists of
Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR); the use of the
Collapsible Steel Frame Structures including Collapsible Polling
obvious imitation thereof and Direct Data Capturing Machines
(DDCM) for the registration of Voters’ and/or the Continuous
Collation/ Compilation and Production of the Voters’ Register
and its derivable database and associated implements therefrom;
despite the subsisting Judgments and Orders of this Honourable
Court to that effect, without the prior written and express license,
consent, authority and/or approval of the Plaintiff/Applicant first
sought and obtained for the various itemized general and bye-
elections periods listed as follows: (i) Years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015
11
& 2019 Presidential Elections; (ii) years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 &
2019 Senatorial & House of Representative Elections; (iii) years
1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 Governorship & State House of
Assembly Elections; (iv) The bye-elections arising from/since
years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 as it relates specifically to
the infringements on the use and continued use of Transparent
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) which integral part consists of
Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR); (v) the use of
the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures including Collapsible
Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise called Voting Cubicles (VC) or
any obvious imitation thereof from/since 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019
general elections including but not limited to the Gubernatorial
Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa States, held on Saturday the 16th
November, 2019 and future elections and (vi) the use and
continued use, process and application of the Direct Data
associated with the process and application of using the products
to generate data for the Voters’ Register and/or its Continuous
Collation/ Compilation for the Voters’ Registration Exercise for
the general elections of years 2015 and 2019 respectively.
24. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents particularly 1st &

2nd Defendants/Respondents to pay the Plaintiff/Applicant the sum of
₦200, 000,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Billion Naira Only) being
the extrapolated yearly itemized breakdown of Budget
Expenditure for years 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017, 2018 and 2020 as the cost of license/royalty fee for the usage,
continuous breach and further acts of the usage and/or further
using of the Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or the
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB),
which integral part consists of the Electronic Card Reader (ECR),
also known and called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card
Reader (OCR); the use of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures
including Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise named
Voting Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof and Direct
Data Capturing Machines (DDCM) for the registration of Voters’
and/or the Continuous Collation/ Compilation and Production of
the Voters’ Register and its derivable database and associated
implements therefrom; despite the subsisting Judgments and Orders
of this Honourable Court to that effect, without the prior written and
express license, consent, authority and/or approval of the
12
Plaintiff/Applicant first sought and obtained by the
Defendants/Respondents (especially the 1st and 2nd
Defendants/Respondents) for the various itemized general and bye-
elections periods as already listed above.

1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents to pay 10% post judgment
interest from the day of Judgment until the judgment sum is fully
liquidated by the Defendants/Respondents.
26. AN ORDER directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents that

the quantum of the judgment sum that may arise from this suit if
successful shall be provided for en-bloc and/or in their yearly
appropriation and paid fully or by installment to the
Plaintiff/Applicant with the attendant accruable interest of 22% until
the total judgment sum is liquidated.

1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents, that henceforth; they shall make,
as a matter of routine, yearly appropriation in respect of
licensing/royalty fees for the Patented Products and Concepts
belonging to the Plaintiff/Applicant and the amount shall be
deducted at source and paid directly to the Plaintiff/Applicant.

1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents, that henceforth; they shall cause
to be inserted into all the contract award letters issued to
contractors and vendors in respect of all Patented Products and
Concepts belonging to the Plaintiff/Applicant a contract clause
stating clearly as follows:
“Please be informed that the product and or concept is covered by

the exclusive Patent and Design Rights of Bedding Holdings
Limited and the Commission has secured the approval of the
patent owner to grant you license to execute this contract for
which appropriate licensing/royalty fees shall be paid and shall
accordingly be deducted at source”.
29. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the

Defendants/Respondents from continuous and further using, in all
future elections, the patented products and/or concepts of the
Plaintiff/Applicant, which includes but not limited to, the
13
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) which integral
called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR); the
Collapsible Steel Frame Structures including Collapsible Polling
obvious imitation thereof and the use of Direct Data Capturing
Machines (DDCM), and its derivable Permanent Voters’ Card
(PVC) and Proof of Address System Scheme (PASS) embedded
with the concept of the Coded Metal Plate (CMP), for the Voters’
Register and/or the Continuous Collation/ Compilation and
Production of the Voters’ Register using the Direct Data
Capturing Machines (DDCM) for registrations and its derivable
database and associated implements therefrom and the Process
and Application of these patented products and concepts to
produce the Voters’ Register respectively; and anything derived
therefrom, without the prior written and express license, consent,
authority and/or approval of the Plaintiff/Applicant first sought and
obtained and to declare any action and/or actions whatsoever and
howsoever or purported to have been taken in connection thereto,
stands in contempt of law and court pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 3 and
6 (2) of the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 2004 and therefore illegal, unlawful,
ALTERNATIVELY:
30. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the

Defendants/Respondents to pay the Plaintiff/Applicant the sum of
₦300, 000,000,000.00 (Three Hundred Billion Naira Only) as
General, Exemplary and Aggravated Damages for the usage,
continuous breach and further acts of the usage and/or further
using of the Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or the
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB),
which integral part consists of the Electronic Card Reader (ECR),
also known and called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card
Reader (OCR); the use of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures
Voting Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof and Direct
Data Capturing Machines (DDCM) for the registration of Voters’
and/or the Continuous Collation/ Compilation and Production of
the Voters’ Register and its derivable database and associated
14
implements therefrom; despite the subsisting Judgments and Orders
of this Honourable Court to that effect, without the prior written and
express license, consent, authority and/or approval of the
Plaintiff/Applicant first sought and obtained for the various itemized
general and bye-elections periods listed as follows: (i) Years 1999,
2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 Presidential Elections; (ii) years 1999,
2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 Senatorial & House of Representative
Elections; (iii) years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 Governorship
& State House of Assembly Elections; (iv) The bye-elections
arising from/since years 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 as it
relates specifically to the infringements on the use and continued
use of Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or the Electronic
called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR); (v)
the use of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures including
Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof from/since 2007,
2011, 2015 and 2019 general elections including but not limited to
the Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa States, held on
Saturday the 16th November, 2019 and future elections and (vi) the
use and continued use, process and application of the Direct Data
associated with the process and application of using the products
to generate data for the Voters’ Register and/or its Continuous
Collation/ Compilation for the Voters’ Registration Exercise for
the general elections of years 2015 and 2019 respectively.

1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents to pay 10% post judgment
interest from the day of Judgment until the judgment sum is fully
liquidated by the Defendants/Respondents.
32. AN ORDER directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents that

the quantum of the judgment sum that may arise from this suit if
successful shall be provided for en-bloc and/or in their yearly
appropriation and paid fully or by installment to the
Plaintiff/Applicant with the attendant accruable interest of 22% until
the total judgment sum is liquidated.
33. AN ORDER DIRECTING the Defendants/Respondents to deliver

up for public destruction of all goods to which the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patents & Designs Copyrights have been
15
applied or any obvious imitation thereof shall have been applied, the
moulds, designs and other manufacturing materials that are in
possession or under the control of the 1 st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents, their servants, agents and privies.
34. AN ORDER as to costs.
35. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR OTHER ORDERS

this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION.
(1) This suit is the subject matter of two (2) cases already
determined by this Honorable Court and it is predicated on
fresh and continous damage and post judgment breaches
suffered and still being sustained till date by the
Plaintiff/Applicant as a result of the Defendants/Respondents,
particularly the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s deliberate and
wanton breach in the continuous use of the patented products
and concepts, without first seeking and obtaining the
Applicant’s written consent, license and authority; after the
Defendants/Respondents have been restrained perpetually
from doing so as contained in the Judgments and Orders of
this Honourable Court, to wit: Suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11
and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on 5th Day of June,
2012 and 28th Day of January, 2014 respectively. The
concise history of these two (2) cases dates back to 27th
January, 2011 and 25th November, 2010 respectively, as
dated and filed; which are succinctly and individually
enumerated as follows:
(2) That Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 was commenced by an

Originating Summons, dated, and filed on the 27th January
2011.The Plaintiff/Applicant instituted this suit against the
Defendants/Respondents seeking Declaratory Reliefs only, of
its exclusive ownership of the inventions named:-
Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) vide the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Certificate of Registration of Patents
Rights NO. RP. 12994 and Registration of Industrial
Design Rights No. RD. 5946 issued to the Plaintiff since 12th
January, 1998 and its exclusive ownership of a subsequent
invention named Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot
Boxes (ECTBB), which integral part consists of the Electronic
16
Card Reader (ECR), also known and called Smart Card Reader
(SCR) or Optical Card Reader, which is an enhanced and
improved derivative of (TBB) vide the Plaintiff/Applicant’s
Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No. RP.16642
and Registration of Industrial Design Rights No. RD.
13841 issued to the Plaintiff on 27th November, 2006 and is
valid till date having paid all prescribed fees and compliance
with other statutory requirements.
(3) At the conclusion of the hearing of the above case, this

Honourable Court in its wisdom, delivered judgment on
Tuesday, 5th of June, 2012, granting all the reliefs sought by
the Plaintiff/Applicant and made an Order of Perpetual
Injunction, inter alia:
“ … restraining the 1st Defendant either by itself, agent,

privies, surrogates or any other person(s) whosoever from
registering, issuing, approving the issuance and/or reissuance
of the Plaintiff’s valid and subsisting patents and/or designs
or any obvious derivative and/or imitation of the said Patents
and/or Designs in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes
and/or Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes to the
2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants and/or any other person or persons
whosoever or otherwise dealing with the said patented
products of the plaintiff EXCEPT with the express and prior
consent, license and authority of the plaintiff to that
effect.”(Underlining supplied for emphasis)
(4) In the same vein, this Honourable Court further made a

Declaration as follows:
“ That by virtue of reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above and Sections

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above and Section 1, 2, 3 and 6(2) of the
Patent and designs Act, any action or actions whatsoever and
howsoever taken or purported to have been taken by the
Defendants relating to the said product WITHOUT the prior
and express license, consent, authority and/or approval of the
Plaintiff is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful and is therefore
Null and Void”.(Underlining supplied for emphasis)
(5) That also Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 was commenced

by a Writ of Summons, dated and filed on 25th November,
2010. The Plaintiff/ Applicant claimed both Declaratory and
17
Monetary Reliefs against the Defendants on the face of the
Summons, being 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), an enhanced and improved derivative
of (TBB); which integral part consists of the Electronic Card
Reader (ECR), also known and called Smart Card Reader
(SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR), and Patent Rights No.
RP.NG/P/2010/202 – Proof of Address
System/Scheme/Scheme (PASS) embedded with the Concept
of the Coded Metal Plate (CMP); the Process and
Application of which was used by the 1st
Defendants/Respondent for the production of the Voters’
Register for the 2011 general election, amongst other
elections, without the prior written license, consent and
authorization of the Plaintiff/Applicant to that effect as
provided in the Patent and Design Act.
(6) That by a well considered Judgment delivered in respect of the

above suit, this Honourable Court entered judgment on 28th
Day of January, 2014, in favour of the Plaintiff and granted
all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant and made a
monetary order,inter alia:
“… N17, 258,820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred

and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty
thousand Naira Only) being the minimum royalty payable
accruable to the plaintiff for the production, procurement,
supply, acquisition, importation, purchase, receipt, sale of the
Direct Data Capturing Machine (DDCM), Laptops and/or any
other equipment ancillary to or associated with Process and
Application of the said patented products respectively for the
registration of voters and/or the collation/compilation and
production of the Voters’ Register for the 2011 general
elections or any other elections by the defendants
(particularly the 4th – 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
Design Rights in and over the Process and Application of the
said products respectively to produce the Voters’
Register.”(Underlining supplied for emphasis)
18
(7) Again, this Honourable Court further granted a Declaratory
Order as follows:
“That the Defendants are compelled to obtain the Plaintiff’s

written license, consent and authority forthwith for the
production, supply application, importation, procurement,
purchase, receipt, sale, of the Direct Data Capturing Machine
(DDCM), Laptops and/or any other equipment ancillary to or
associated with Process and Application of the said products
respectively to produce the Voters’ Register as the bona-fide
patentee of the Patent and Design Rights in and over the said
Process and Application of these products respectively to
produce the Voters’ Register.”(Underlining supplied for
emphasis)
(8) That as a corollary of the Judgment/Orders relating to Suit

No.FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 as partly enumerated above, for
the monetary Judgment of N17, 258, 820, 000.000 (Seventeen
Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty Eight Million, Eight
Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira only) that was
ordered in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant; a follow-up
towards the enforcement of the aforesaid Judgment debt was
initiated. To this end, a Garnishee Order Nisi commenced on
the 26th September 2018 against the Defendants/Judgment
Debtors/Central Bank of Nigeria and the Judgment
Creditor/Applicant’s application was granted on the 15th
October, 2018, to wit: that the Judgment sum be deposited
with the Court in a Garnishee Proceeding - Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/492/2018 directing them, inter-alia;
“AND further take notice, that if you pay to the Registrar of

this Court the amount of such debt, or so much thereof as
will satisfy the debt due under the said Judgment (or Order)
and the costs entered on this Summons within eight days of
the service of this Summons on you, inclusive of the date of
service, you will incur no further costs”. (Underlining
supplied for emphasis)
The above Order was again neglected, treated with disdain by the
Defendants/Respondents who now stand in utter contempt of law
and court. The Certified True Copies of the Plaintiff/Applicant
summons and the resultant Garnishee Order Nisi will be relied
upon at the hearing of this case.
19
(9) That in the Originating Summons in Suit No.
th
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011, which Judgment was delivered on 5 day of
June, 2012 as earlier stated above, a contempt proceedings was
instituted against the Defendants/Respondents for which the leave
of Court was sought and obtained; dated 28 th day of August,
2012. The aftermath Ruling on the contempt proceedings was
delivered on the 28th day of May, 2013 in which the Honourable
Court agreed with all the reliefs sought but in its wisdom, was
minded to stay the proceedings in the contempt committed against
its judgment pursuant to the omnibus prayer.
(10) Furthermore, the Plaintiff/Applicant is also the duly registered

owner of the Patent and Industrial Design Rights in Collapsible
Steel Frame Structures, including Collapsible Polling Booths
imitation thereof pursuant to the provisions of the Patent and Design
Act by virtue of the fact that this Patent and Industrial Design Right
are still valid and subsisting having been extended at various times
by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent having paid all prescribed fees and
compliance with other statutory requirements till date.
(11) That for the 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019 general elections, the 1st &
2nd Defendants/Respondents in disregard of the Plaintiff’s Patent No.
RP. 10511 awarded the entire contract for the production and supply
of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures, an obvious imitation of
the Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise described as
Voting Cubicles (VC) by the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to
other vendors in utter infringement of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s rights
under the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 2004, Cap. P2, Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria, 2004 despite protests from the Plaintiff/Applicant to the 1 st
& 2nd Defendants/Respondents.
(12) That the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st & 2nd

Defendants/Respondents in spite of all lawful means undertaken to
ensure their compliance with the Judgments/Orders of Court, have
persistently omitted, failed, refused and/or neglected to obey the
various subsisting Judgments/Orders of this Honourable Court
and in fact have perpetrated their intransigence by conducting the
Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa States, held by the
Defendants/Respondents on Saturday the 16th of November, 2019
as they have always done with impunity; using all the
20
aforementioned patented products of the Plaintiff/Applicant, without
first seeking and obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent,
license and authority as provided in law.
(13) That the license for the import, supply, production/and or repair of
500,000 units of Transparent Ballot Boxes granted by the
Plaintiff/Applicant to the 1st Defendant/Respondent in 2003, for that
specific period; vide License Agreement, expired on 29th March,
2003 making any subsequent and continuous use illegal and
actionable, except with the express written and prior consent,
license and authority of the Plaintiff/Applicant to that effect.
(14) That by virtue of the combined effect of Section 42 (1) and (2) of
the Public Procurement Act, 2007, and Section 6 (1) of the Patent
and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria
2004, the Plaintiff/Applicant reserves the exclusive right to
manufacture, import, sell, produce use and otherwise deal with the
said patented products of the Plaintiff/Applicant to the exclusion of
any other person whosoever, including but not limited to, the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent, except with the prior written and express
consent, authorization, approval and license of our client to that
effect; pursuant to the said license granted by the Plaintiff/Applicant.
(15) That the 1st Defendant/Applicant has always honoured and applied
the provisions of the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria 2004 as it relates to its dealings regarding
the patented products of the Plaintiff/Applicant since 1988, 1999
and also 2003 election circle. However in 2007, the 1st
Defendant/Respondent under the erstwhile Chairman, Prof.
Maurice Iwu reneged on the existing arrangement.
(16) That the situation of the Plaintiff/Applicant in this matter is one of

utmost urgency necessitated by the continuous acts of lawlessness
on the part of the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents for using all patented materials of the
Plaintiff/Applicant in utter disobedience and contempt of law and
court to subsisting Court Judgments and Orders.
(17) That unless the Honourable Court hears and determines this matter
expeditiously, the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents will continue to initiate, commence and
engage in conduct deliberately aimed at contemptuously subverting,
undermining, ridiculing or disobeying the subsisting Judgments and
21
Orders of this Honourable Court as enumerated above with the
attendant consequences of denying the Plaintiff/Applicant of the
exclusive enjoyments of the fruits of his subsisting
Judgments/Orders as granted.
DATED this 4th day of March, 2020.
CHIEF ASSAM E. ASSAM (SAN),

CHIEF KARINA TUNYAN (SAN),
AKINLOLU AKINTEWE, ESQ.,
SOJI TOKI, ESQ.,
JOHN OKORIKO, ESQ.,
JAMES ODIBA, ESQ.,
E.K. OKOKO, ESQ.,
ISAAC O. IBUOYE, ESQ.
OLAKUNLELAWAL, ESQ.,
ABDULJALIL MUSA ESQ.
C/O KARINA TUNYAN SAN & CO.,

28, BLANTYRE STREET,
NEAR ECWA CHURCH,
WUSE II,
ABUJA.
TEL: 08066315057, 08028781274.
E-Mail:odibaja@yahoo.com;
meetesiri4justice@yahoo.com
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. THE 1ST& 2NDDEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS:

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC),
PLOT 436, ZAMBEZI CRESCENT,
MAITAMA, FCT - ABUJA.
2. THE 3RDDEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
REGISTRAR OF PATENTS& DESIGNS,
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF TRADE & INVESTMENT,
COMMERCIAL LAW DEPARTMENT,
PATENT AND DESIGNS SECTION,
OLD SECRETARIAT, AREA 1,
GARKI, FCT- ABUJA.
3. THE 4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE,
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,
SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
FCT – ABUJA.

HOLDEN AT ABUJA
22
BETWEEN
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED………...……..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
AND

COMMISSION (INEC)

..DEFENDANTS/

MINISTER OF JUSTICE
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINATING

MOTION.
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 affidavit evidence I depose to herein is the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth and state as follows:
1. I am the Group Executive Chairman/CEO of the

Plaintiff/Applicant herein and by virtue of which I am very
conversant with the facts deposed to herein.
2. That I have the consent and authority of the Plaintiff/Applicant to

swear to this affidavit.
3. That the Plaintiff/Applicant is a company duly incorporated under

the Companies and Allied Matters Act, and has its Corporate Head
Office at Plot 55, Adeniyi Jones, Ikeja – Lagos. A copy of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Certificate of Incorporation is hereto
attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 1”.
23
4. That the 1st Defendant/Respondent is a Federal Government
Commission/Agency charged with the responsibility of the
general conduct of elections all over the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, which involves the use of Ballot Boxes, Transparent Ballot
Boxes (TBB) and/or Electronic Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB),
Collapsible Steel Frame Structures, including Collapsible Polling
Booths (CPB) otherwise called Voting Cubicles (VC) amongst other
electioneering materials and tools, for the collection, collation and
compilation of data from voters during the conduct of elections in
Nigeria and has its Corporate Head Office at Plot 436, Zambezi
Cresent, Maitama District A5, Abuja, a place within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
5. The 2nd Defendant/Respondent is the Chairman and Chief

Executive of the 1st Defendant/Respondent and is, at all times of this
suit, charged with the administration and management of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent in the conduct and preparation of general
elections and all other elections in Nigeria.
6. That the 3rd Defendant/Respondent is the only official of the

Federal Government of Nigeria 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, Cap. P2 Laws
of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and has its office at Federal
Ministry of Trade and Investment, Old Secretariat, Area 1,
Garki, FCT Abuja.
7. The 4thDefendant/Respondent 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 on behalf of the
Federal Government of Nigeria and her Agencies but not limited to
1st Defendant Respondent and has its Office at ShehuShagari Way,
FCT – Abuja.
8. That the Plaintiff/Applicant specializes in Business Development

for the Public Sector of the economy and the general fabrication and
manufacture of Steel Metal Products such as Ballot Boxes,
Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or Electronic Transparent
Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), Collapsible Steel Frame Structures,
Voting Cubicles (VC) with other electioneering materials and
24
tools/conceptsamongstother related products for the Electoral body
in Nigeria and the Communication Industry; and provides other
varying services that support the socio-economic development of
Nigeria.
9. The Plaintiff/Applicant avers further that resulting from its various

contributions to the socio-economic development of Nigeria in
different spheres of life, the Group Executive Chairman/CEO of
the Plaintiff/Applicant was accorded several Local, National and
International Awards, some of which are: 1999 ECOWAS
International Gold and Men of Achievement Award for
outstanding achievement in Business and Contribution to the Growth
and development of Nigeria; 2004 Dr. Kwame Nkrumah Africa
Leadership Award for Excellence in Enterprise and Nigeria’s
Highest Order of Honour and Dignity for Productivity- National
Productivity Order of Merit (NPOM) bestowed on the CEO of the
Plaintiff/Applicant by the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeriaas far
back as 1997 for his remarkable contribution to National
Productivity as the most productive individual. The Certified True
Copies of the National Productivity of the order of Merit
(NPOM) Certificate, an impression of the plaque for ‘MOST
PRODUCTIVE INDIVIDUAL AWARD’ as presented, and the
Plaintiff/Applicant CEO’s citation at the public presentation of
the award as embedded in the Program of Events obtained from
the National Library, being recognition of his creative and
productive ingenuity by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, giving
credence to his various creations are hereto collectively attached
and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 1A”.
10.That apropos to the above, the Plaintiff/Applicant’s creative and

technological inventive ingenuity prior to the registration of the
Patents and Designs Rights in respect of Transparent Ballot Boxes
and other related products/concepts, have been involved in the
manufacture of metal fabrications of all types, including Metal Beds
for Hospitals and Prisons, Cash Boxes, Steel Doors, NEPAPower
Distribution Boxes, Banks Steel Vault Doors, NIPOST Street Pillar
Posting Boxes, Postal Agency Boxes, P.O. Boxes, House Letter
Boxes, NITEL Telephone Booths, Metal Ballot Boxesetc;which
were utilized for elections since 1988. Copies of some of the letters
of award and commendations of such contracts that encapsulate
all aforementioned are herein attached and marked as
“EXHIBITS SOO 1B to 1J” respectively.
25
11.As far back as 1987, the Plaintiff/Applicant initiated and introduced
the manufacture of locally manufactured Metal Ballot Boxes to the
then National Electoral Commission (NEC), a product hitherto
imported by the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO).
12.Though the Plaintiff/Applicant designed and introduced the concept,

NEC, gave Plaintiff/Applicant’s design to other manufacturers to
produce in order to meet the 1988, 1993, 1999 and 2003 election
deadlines with the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent. This has
been the tradition between the Plaintiff/Applicant and the 1st
Defendant/Respondent.
13.That the 1st Defendant/Respondent had always produced and has

been using the Ballot Boxes of the Plaintiff/Applicant ever since
1987 (which product metamorphosed to what is now called
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes) when it was known as
National Electoral Commission (NEC). The Certified True
Copies of the letter of award and contract agreement dated 6th
day of October 1987 and 8thday of October 1987, respectively
from the 1st Defendant/Applicant requesting the Applicant to
supply 10,000 units of the Metal Ballot Boxes as far back as 1987
are hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO1K to 1L”.
14.As a result of different allegations of irregularity and lack of

transparency at various elections, the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Board of
Directors in 1996 directed its Research and Development (R&D)
unit to look into the possibility of inventing a ballot box that would
allay fears of the electorate.
15.The aforementioned directive from the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Board of

Directors set in motion the birth of the Transparent Ballot Box
(TBB).
16.That the Plaintiff/Applicant is also the duly registered owner of the

Patent and Industrial Design Rights in Collapsible Steel Frame
Structures, including Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise
called Voting Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof
pursuant to the provisions of the Patent and Design Act by virtue of:
(i) Certificate of Patent Registration No. RP. 10511 dated

the 31st of March, 1989, duly issued to it by the3 rd
26
Defendant/Respondent for period of twenty (20) years
from the date of the patent, i.e. till 30th of March 2009.
(ii) Certificate of Industrial Design Registration No. RD.

3962 dated the 31st of March, 1989, duly issued to it by
the 3rdDefendant/Respondent for an initial period of five
(5) years from the date of the design i.e. till 20 th of
December 1993.
(iii) Upon payment of the prescribed fee and compliance

with other statutory requirements, the Certificate of
Industrial Design registration was extended vide its
Certificate Design No. RD. 3962 of Extension of
copyright design for a second period of five (5) years,
dated 1st of February 1996 till 20th of November 1998.
(iv) Upon payment of the prescribed fee and compliance

with other statutory requirements, the Certificate of
Industrial Design registration was extended videits
Certificate of Extension of Copyright Design No. RD.
3962 for a further period of five (5) years, till 20 th of
December 2003.
(v) Upon filing of requisite Statement of Novelty the 3rd

Defendant/Respondent granted the Plaintiff/Applicant
Copyright in this design vide its Certificate No. RD.
13840-dated 11th of December 2006 to expire on 22nd
of November, 2011.
(vi) Upon payment of the prescribed fee and compliance of

other statutory requirements, the Certificate of
Industrial Design registration No. RD. 13840-dated 30th
of April 2018 was granted by the 3rd
Defendant/Respondent to expire on 2nd of November,
2021.
The Certified True Copies of the aforementioned Patent

Registration Certificate and Certificates of Extension of
Copyright Design are attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO
2 & 3” respectively.
17.That on 12th January 1998 the Plaintiff/Applicant was also issued

with the Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No. RP. 12994
27
and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No. RD. 5946 in and
over the invention named Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) by the
3rd Defendant/Respondent.
18.That also on 27th November, 2006, the Plaintiff/Applicant registered

and was issued with the Patent Rights No. RP. 16642 and
Copyright DesignCertificate No. RD. 13841 in and over the
invention named: “Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot
Boxes (ECTBB)”, which is an Enhanced and Improved derivative
of (TBB), which integral features include the Electronic Card Reader
(ECR), also known and called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical
Card Reader (OCR) and Patent Rights No. RP NG/P/2010 and
Design Certificate No. NG/RD/2010/139 in and over invention
named: Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded
with the concept of the Coded Metal Plate) and its derivable
Permanent Voters’ Card (PVC) thereof and the Process and
Application of which is used to derive bio-data of voters for the
production of the Voters’ Register.
19.That the above stated Patents and Industrial Design Rights of the
Plaintiff/Applicant are still valid and subsisting having been
extended at various times by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent and
having paid all prescribed fees and in compliance with other
statutory requirements till date, as confirmed by Two (2)
Judgments/Orders of this Honourable Court in Suit
Nos.FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on
the 5th Day of June, 2012 and 28th Day of January, 2014
respectively. The Certified True Copies of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patent Right Certificate No. RP 12994 and
Design Certificate No. RD 5946 in and over TBB; Patent Right
Certificate No. RP 16642 and Copyright Designs Certificate No.
RD 13841 in and over ECTBB and Patents Rights Certificate No.
RP NG/P/2010/202 in and over the Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) and Design Certificate No.
NG/RD/2010/139 are hereto individually and collectively
attached (as per Patent Certificates, its Annual payments of
Renewal fees and various Extension of Copyright Design
Certificates) and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 3A to 3I”,
respectively.
20.That the aforementioned instruments referred to in paragraph 19

above, which Intellectual Property Rights vest in the
Plaintiff/Applicant; the copyright, sole, authority, right to use and
28
vend the said invention, and to have and enjoy the whole profit and
advantage from time to time accruing from the said invention for the
respective periods stated above, and are entitled to preclude any
other person including the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the
1st& 2nd Defendants/Respondents from reproducing the designs or
any obvious imitation thereof in the manufacture, importing, selling,
or supplying, stocking the patented products and designs for the
purpose of sale or use.
21.That despite Plaintiff/Applicant’s bringing to the notice of the 1 st and

2nd Defendants/Respondents the existence of the Patent & Design
Rights in and over Collapsible Steel Frame Structures, including
Cubicles (VC) including other patented products/concepts of the
Plaintiff/Applicant or any obvious imitation thereof, the 1 st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents still went ahead to deploy same for the
2007 general elections; used & continued to use the Collapsible
Steel Frame Structures, including Collapsible Polling Booths
imitation thereof for the years 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019 general
elections and the bye-elections arising from same years and in fact
are currently making new preparations to continue their
infringement in respect of the Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi
and Bayelsa States held on 16th November, 2019 and other future
elections as they have always done with impunity; with the intention
of using all the aforementioned patented products of the
Plaintiff/Applicant without first seeking and obtaining the
Applicant’s written consent, license and authority as provided in the
Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria 2004. A Certified True Copy of the Nation Newspaper,
page 33 of Monday, 22nd July 2019 in respect of the
Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa States held on 16 th
November, 2019 is attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 4”.
22.That in order to protect our interest, we decided to insert Public

Notices in four (4) National daily Newspapers, warning members
of the public including the Defendants/Respondents, especially the
1St Defendants/Respondent against infringing on our Patents and
Industrial Design Rights in respect of the said Collapsible Steel
Frame Structures, including Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB)
otherwise called Voting Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation
thereof and our other patented products.
29
PARTICULARS OF PUBLIC NOTICES
Newspapers Publication Date
i. Punch Newspaper November 28th 2006

ii. This Day Newspaper November 29th 2006
iii Daily Trust Newspaper November 30th 2006
iv Guardian Newspaper November 30th 2006
The Certified True Copies of the above itemized Newspapers are

hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 5 to
5C”respectively.
23.That when no response was received from the 1 st

Defendant/Respondent even after the publication in paragraph 22
above, we instructed our Solicitors Messrs Alaba Odunlami & Co;
to write the erstwhile Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent,
Prof. Maurice Iwu, the Honorable Secretary of the Commission and
the Director of Legal Services, intimating them once again about our
legal rights and interest in the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures,
Voting Cubicles (VC) or any obvious imitation thereof and our
other patented products for use in the General elections scheduled for
April or May 2007 or thereabout, without the knowledge, written
consent, authority and license of the Plaintiff/Applicant. A copy of
our Solicitor’s letter dated the 12th of December, 2006 is hereto
24.That upon receipt of our Solicitor’s letter, the 1 st

Defendants/Respondent’s Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu, as he
then was; invited me to a meeting at his official residence at No. 1,
Ona Crescent, off Lake Chad Crescent, Maitama District, Abuja
on Thursday the14th of December 2006 at about 8.30am.
25.That at the meeting, the erstwhile Chairman of the 1st

Defendant/Respondent, Prof. Maurice Iwu and I exchanged
pleasantries and I used the opportunity afforded me to explain the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s position as it relates our Patents and Designs
Copyright issues. To which, he interjected and narrated the following
as stated hereunder verbatim, that:
30
(i) “I received another letter from your Solicitors, Messrs.
Alaba Odunlami and Co. relating to Collapsible
Polling Booth which we call Voting Cubicle”;
(ii) He further went on to say, “Let me tell you, the caption

on the Certificate is very vague. Does this mean
anything that has Steel Frame Structures and is
Collapsible as vaguely stated in the copy of your patent
Certificate belongs to you?I happen to know about
Patents a lot and I am the highest holder of Patents in
Nigeria today! As a scientist I have conducted many
researches both at local and international levels and
have these registered at both ends of the divide”. Again,
he narrated, “ I was heading an office in the United
Nations that deals on Intellectual Property Rights, so I
know what am talking about here”, “I mean I lived
overseas for over 10 years” “What you have is not a
Patent but Trademark. Your lawyers are just out to eat
your money. You know, lawyers have a way of pushing
people to ask for the impossible and make them lose
their money!” “For instance, you can’t say you want to
register a patent for water, though you can register a
particular brand of water”. “Besides you can’t expect
us to reverse what we have done already” “I can tell
you authoritatively that all that was done by the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent in 2003 relating to this Patent
matter was wrong. Lots of things that were done then
are things we are now putting right in this new
dispensation. We are willing to go to Court at whatever
cost. You will go from one Court to the other. And if you
do, you will have your personal money to waste. It is
you that should be thinking of financing your cause;I
have Government resources at my disposal to get to
any level and extent. Even if you win, we will appeal
and the case will drag. By the time it is decided, I will
long be long out of here” He concluded and foreclosed
the issue by saying, “My brother! All I will advise is
for you to look towards a futuristic relationship. All
these are gone for now”;
(iii) As I got up to leave his presence, he threatened me that

“if you go to court, you would be viewed and be
treated as trying to scuttle the 2007 elections”;
31
(iv) He was arrogantly defiant and indicated his intention to
go on despite the notices, letter from our Solicitor
and advise from the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s legal
department as referred to in paragraph 22 above, with
applicable “EXHIBITS SOO 5 to 5C, paragraph 23,
with applicable “EXHIBIT SOO 6” as hereinbefore
marked above and paragraph 36 (e) (v) with applicable
“EXHIBITS SOO 9 & 9A” as marked hereto below,
respectively.
(v) Summarily, he conclusively said he did not believe we

had any Patent or Industrial Design in respect of
Collapsible Steel Frame Structures, including
Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise called
Voting Cubicles (VC) or any imitation thereof and/or
any of our other patented Products/Concepts, neither did
he believe any such patent or Industrial Design could
have been granted, except at best a trademark;
a) That the 1st Defendant/Respondent could and would

proceed to do whatsoever it wished without due regard
for the rule of law and nothing would happen;
b) That in any case the 1st Defendant/Respondent was

interested in Voting Cubicles and not Collapsible Still
Frame Structures or Collapsible Polling Booths and was
therefore not obligated to us contrary to the rule of law
and the Patent and Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 2004;
c) Everything the 1st Defendant/Respondent did in 2003

in respect of our patent was wrong;
d) The 1st Defendant/Respondent was prepared to go to

court at whatever cost as it had government resources at
its disposal to get to any level and extent. It was for us
to think of how to fund our own cause;
e) That if I went to court, I would be treated as

attempting to scuttle the 2007 elections.
32
The meeting ended inconclusively and on a very
unpleasant note.
26.That in spite of our Solicitor’s letter referred to in paragraph 23

and the Public Notices issued in paragraph 22 above, the 1st
Defendant/Respondent has, to date, failed to obtain our written
consent, license or agreement for the production, acquisition,
importation and/or supply of any Collapsible Steel Frame Structures,
including Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise called Voting
Cubicles (VC) or any imitation thereof as required by the Patent and
Designs Act, Cap. P2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
27.That the Plaintiff/Applicant is the originator and Design owner of the

Collapsible Steel Frame Structures (otherwise called Collapsible
polling Booths or Voting Cubicles) which has been duly registered
as Patent No. RP 10511 and Industrial Designs Certificate No. RD
3962 with its peculiar distinctiveness, newness, statement of novelty,
and fundamental ornaments which have never been used before and
there had been several renewals as detailed and referred to at
paragraph 16 (i) – (vi) which Patent and Designs renewal Certificates
and Statement of Novelty are already attached and marked as
“EXHIBITS SOO 2 to 3” above, respectively.
28.That I am aware that Collapsible Steel Frame Structures (otherwise

called Collapsible Polling Booths or Voting Cubicles) had not been
in use for the conduct of any election in Nigeria prior to our
registration of this Patent.
29.That as far back as 1988, we have been manufacturing Collapsible

Steel Frame Structures (otherwise called Collapsible Polling Booths
or Voting Cubicles) and we have intimated the 1st
Defendant/Respondent to that effect. The Certified True Copies of
the relevant correspondence between the Plaintiff /Applicant
company and the predecessors-in-office of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent are hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBITS SOO 6A to 6C”.
30.Of particular interest is “EXHIBIT SOO 6C” which is a letter of

their predecessors-in-office, the excerpts of paragraphs 1, 2 & 3,
reads thus:
Paragraph 1 - “As a follow up to your meeting with the

committee set up in respectof the above, you are invited to a
33
meeting with the ten (10) other companies short-listed for this
purpose”.UNDERLINING FOR
EMPHASIS
Paragraph 2 – “The meeting is to allow familiarization with

these companies in view to availing them with your technical
specification for your locally designed Collapsible Polling
Booth.”UNDERLINING FOR EMPHASIS
Paragraph 3 – “Furthermore, it is expected that this meeting

would provide a forum that would inter alia resolve the
terms and conditions of this arrangement with these third
parties vis-à-vis the agreement of royalties in the light of
your Patents and Copyrights.”UNDERLINING FOR
EMPHASIS
31.That the Plaintiff/Applicant avers that since year 1988, we have been
manufacturing Collapsible Steel Frame Structures (otherwise called
Collapsible Polling Booths or Voting Cubicles) of which we had
accordingly intimated the 1st& 2nd Defendants/Respondents to that
effect,as per “EXHIBITS SOO 5 to 5C, 6, 6A to 6C” as attached
and referred to at paragraphs 22, 23 and 29 above, respectively.
32.That in 1988, our Research and Development (R & D) unit

designed the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures (otherwise called
Collapsible Polling Booths or Voting Cubicles) as an alternative and
replacement for locally made booths with palm fronds, town halls,
schools and other public places as polling booths.
33.That despite all the aforementioned Public Notices and our

Solicitor’s letter, the 1st Defendant/Respondent still went ahead and
contracted contractors to supply it 35,992 units (Thirty five thousand,
nine hundred and ninety two) of Collapsible Steel Frame
Structures, including Collapsible Polling Booths (CPB) otherwise
called Voting Cubicles (VC) or any imitation thereof, which it
described as Voting Cubicle at a unit price of N25,000.00k
(Twenty five thousand Naira) each, making a total contract sum of
approximately ₦ 900,000,000.00 (Nine Hundred Million Naira)
and continues to use this patented product and continues to award
this contract to date at every election circle with theabounding
inflationary trends on the contract price, WITHOUT first seeking
and obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent, license and
authority. The Certified True Copies of the 1st
34
Defendant/Respondent’s Internal Memo No. INEC/MEMO No.
131/2006 Memorandum on Printing and Supply of Voting
Materials submitted to it by the Tenders Board Chairman and
the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s NASS approved 2009
Appropriations, which budget Classification No. 0500002009000
column indicates a ₦3, 000,000,000.00 (Three Billion Naira)
provision for Collapsible Steel Frame Structures, including
Cubicles (VC) or any imitation thereof; the Federal Tenders
Journal dated 4th May, 2009 calling for Invitation To Tender for
the aforesaid patented product under the column Supply of
Voting Cubicles are hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS
SOO 7 to 7B” respectively.
34.That further to paragraph 33 above, the 1st Defendant/Respondent

awarded in total thirty - six (36) contracts without first seeking and
obtaining the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent, license and
authority.
PARTICULARS OF COLLAPSIBLE STEEL FRAME

STRUCTURES (OTHERWISE CALLED COLLAPSIBLE POLLING
BOOTHS)
RENAMED VOTING CUBICLES (VC) PURCHASED FOR THE
2007 & 2011 & 2019 ELECTIONS.
Nos. Of (TBB) AMOUNTS
i) VC, Tables, Chairs etc acquired for 2006 elections ₦ 1, 074, 000,000.00
Mobile Cubicles acquired for 2006 elections ₦ 750, 000,000.00
ii) 36,000 units of (VC) acquired for 2007elections ₦ 900, 000,000.00
iii) VC acquired for 2009 elections as per appropriation ₦3, 000, 000, 000.00
iii) VC acquired for 2011 elections as per appropriation ₦3, 000, 000, 000.00
v) VC acquired for 2019 elections as per appropriation ₦2, 268, 000, 000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT: ₦10, 992, 000, 000.00
35.That by virtue of their actions pleaded in paragraphs 33 & 34

above, the Defendants/Respondents, especially the 1st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents have continued and still continue to use
35
our patented products/concepts without our written consent and
approval to that effect.
36.That in recognition of and in deference to the subsistence of our legal

rights and interests, the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s predecessors-in-
office have always sought and obtained our written consent, license
or agreement before proceeding to award contracts for the supply to
it by third parties of another of our patented products, the
Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB); as exemplified by the executed
license agreement attached as “EXHIBITS SOO 10 to 10B”
respectively, particularly referred to in this paragraph 36 (g) (i)
below:
PARTICULARS
(a) Upon receipt of due notice of the existence of our rights vide our
letter of the 31st August 1998, the 1st Defendant/Respondent
obtained our consent to acquire and use 110,000 units of
Transparent Ballot Boxes, which the 1st Defendant/Respondent
had made a financial/budget provision of ₦528, 000,000.00 (Five
Hundred and Twenty Eight Million Naira) as per (paragraphs
5 of pg. 2 & 6a of pg. 3) of its letter dated 5th July 1996 as
exemplified and referred to in paragraph 36 (b) and attached as
(EXHIBIT 8B) below, in preparation for the 1999 elections
only;
(b) For its agreement in (a) above, we were awarded a contract to

computerize all the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s offices in South
West of Nigeria i.e. Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti
States at a contract sum of ₦63,078,750.00K (Sixty Three
Million, Seventy – Eight Thousand and Seven Hundred and
Fifty Naira Only). Attached hereto are our letter to the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent dated the 31st of August, 1998, its
letter of award of contract dated 21st of January, 1999 and its
letter dated 5th of July, 1996 respectively, marked as
“EXHIBITS SOO 8 and 8B” respectively;
(c) In 2003, when we got to know that the 1st Defendant/Respondent

was going to utilize our patented Transparent Ballot Boxes for
the conduct of election for that year, we drew the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent’s attention to our Patent and Industrial
Design rights and demanded for a meeting to negotiate a fee for
the issuance of a license for the acquisition, supply, importation
and use of the boxes;
36
(d) The 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Secretary of the Commission at
that time who was a former Permanent Secretary in the Federal
Ministry of Commerce and Industry caused a thorough
investigation to be undertaken to confirm the existence and
authenticity of our legal claims and rights;
(e) Our claims and rights were confirmed by the 1 st

Defendant/Respondent’s internal memo as in the following:
i Memo dated 18th of January 2003 from the 1st

Defendant/Respondent’s Senior Legal officer to its Ag.
Deputy Director Legal;
ii Memo dated the 22nd January 2003 from the 1st

Defendant/Respondent’s Deputy Director Legal Services to
the Secretary of the Commission;
iii Memo dated 21st of January 2003 from the 1st

Defendant/Respondent’s Chairperson, Operation Committee to
its Hon. Chairman;
iv Memo No. OPS/04/03 dated the 21st January 2003 from the
1st Defendant/Respondent’s Chairperson, Operations
st
Committee to the 1 Defendant/Respondent. The Certified
True Copies of the above mentioned memos are hereto
attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 9 to 9c”
respectively;
vi Instructive from the contents of their predecessors in office as

evident in “Exhibits SOO 9 to 9C” referred to in paragraph 36
(iv) above, especially the excerpts from “EXHIBIT SOO 9”,
which reads thus:
(d)“Any of the contractors seeking to supply the Transparent Boxes to
INEC may apply to be licensed by Bedding Holdings Ltd. to use its
patent rights provided that such a company is not a concurrent user
under section 6(4) of the Act and that the subject matter is not
patentable underS.1(4)(a) & (b) of the Patents and Designs Act 1990…
CONCLUSION
Options on A, B, C and D are necessary and need to be treated
timeously in order to avoidunnecessary litigation, please”.
UNDERLINING FOR EMPHASIS
and the excerpts from “EXHIBIT SOO 9A” also read thus:
37
4. “Based on the confirmation by the Registrar of Patentsthat the Patent
is authentic, and the effect of the existence of a Patent, as prescribed by
law, it is recommended that an amicable resolution of this matter be
explored by the Commission andthe Patentee”. UNDERLINING FOR
EMPHASIS
(f) Based on the outcome of the 1st Defendants/Respondent’s

findings and its conviction thereof, it negotiated with us for a
license fee of N2,000.00K (Two Thousand Naira) per unit of
the product to be imported or used by the 1st
Defendant/Respondent, which we rejected;
(g) We however agreed to waive our rights to a direct license fee in

consideration of the following compensatory terms:
i. That we will license the 1st Defendant/Respondent whose

agents/contractors will import, supply and produce not
more than 500,000 units of the Transparent Boxes and for
repair work to be undertaken on existing boxes. The
Certified True Copies of the License Agreement and the
Letters of Registration of License of Right in respect of
Patent and Design issued to us by the office of the 3 rd
Defendant dated the 4th of February 2003 are hereto
attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 10 to 10b”
respectively;
ii. We were contracted to supply 40,000 units of the entire

230,000 units of Transparent Ballot Boxes that were
ordered for the 2003 elections at a price of N9, 000.00 per
unit, of which we accordingly granted them appropriate
license for this period ONLY that expired on 29th of
March 2003. A CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES of our
letter of contract award letter to the Plaintiff/Applicant
is hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 11”;
iii. A clause in every letter of award to the other eight (8)

contractors who supplied the outstanding 190,000 units of
the Transparent Ballot Boxes stated as follows:
“Please be informed that the product (Transparent Ballot

Boxes) is covered by patent and the Commission has secured
the approval of the patent holder to grant you license to
manufacture/import the product”.
38
The Certified True Copies of the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s
List of Companies except that of the Plaintiff/Applicant,
awarded the contracts for the local and Imported production
of a total of 190,000 units Transparent Ballot Boxes and their
letter of Award of contracts are hereto attached and marked
as “EXHIBITS SOO 12 to 12g” respectively.
iv. That at the conclusion of the negotiations the following

letters were sent to the 1st Defendant/Respondent:
a. Our solicitor, Messrs. Alaba Odunlami& Co.’s letter

dated to the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Chairman dated
the 23rd of January, 2003;
b. A copy of my personal letter to all members of the

Commission dated the 23rd of January, 2003;
c. Our letter to the 1st Defendants/Respondent’s Secretary

of the Commission dated 27thof January, 2003. Copies
of the above letters are hereto attached and marked
as “EXHIBITS SOO 13 to 13b” respectively.
37.That the license for the import, supply, production and/or repair of
500,000 units of Transparent Ballot Boxes referredto in
paragraph 36 (g) (i) above, marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 10”
granted by the Plaintiff/Applicant to the 1 st Defendant/Respondent in
2003, was for that specific period only; vide License Agreement that
expired on 29th March, 2003.
38.That in spite of the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Legal Services

Department’s advice and recommendation to the 1st
Defendant/Respondent, in respect of the claim of our Patent and
Industrial Design Rights in Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes, which is similar to
our claim in respect of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures which
it described as Voting Cubicles the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s
erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu, omitted, failed, neglected
and/or refused to heed the same. The Certified True Copies’s of
the following memos are hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBITS SOO 14 to 14B” respectively, to wit:
39
i. Memo dated the 30th of November, 2006 from the 1st
Defendant/Respondent Committee of four (4) members to the
Deputy Director, Legal Services;
ii. Undated memo from the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s

Committee of four (4) members to the Deputy director, Legal
services;
iii. Memo dated the 15th December, 2006 to Chairman, Legal

Services & CC from the HOD Legal Services and the totality
of the comments thereof.
39.That salient excerpts of the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s memos

referred to in paragraphs 38 (i), (ii) and (iii) above and attached as
“EXHIBITS SOO 14 to 14B”, are reproduced hereunderfor
emphasis and ease of reference.
40.The entire contents of the memo in “Exhibit SOO 14” are

important, with particular reference to pages 2 & 3, especially
paragraphs 4, 7 & 8 are germane excerpts worthy of consideration
and reads thus:
4. “At this juncture, the question to ask is what is the legal

implication of the Commissions’ proposed use or procurement
of Transparent Ballot Boxes for 2007 Elections without the
consent of the Patentee?”UNDERLININGFOR EMPHASIS
7. “ In view of the foregoing facts and the relevant provisions

of the law, it appears that the Commission has no legal or
equitable defense if it proposes to use or procure Transparent
Ballot Boxes for 2007 General Elections without the consent
of the Patentee.”UNDERLINING FOR EMPHASIS
8. “ Finally the Committee is of the opinion that the

Commission follows the precedent that was laid down by it
in 2003 to avoid undue delays in the use or procurement of
Transparent Ballot Boxes for the 2007 General Elections, as
required by the provisions of the Patent and Designs Act, Cap
344 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.”
40
and the excerpts from “EXHIBIT SOO 14A” are further
salient, with particular reference to paragraphs 4, 6 & 7 and
also read thus:
4. “ The design of Transparent Ballot Box registered by

Bedding Holdings is as shown on folios 19 and 20 of the file. This
was confirmed by the Registrar of Patents at a meeting with the
Commission as at folios 55 and 56 in 2003.” UNDERLINING
FOR EMPHASIS.
6. “ We humbly state that members of this Committee are not

privileged to know what design of ballot box the Commission
intends to procure for the 2007 general Elections.”
8. “ But the legal implication of Section 19 of Patent and

Design Act Cap 344 laws of the Federation is that as long as the
product sought to be acquired is transparent and it is in any way
similar to the registered design, it is protected by the Patent law”
UNDERLINING FOR EMPHASIS.
And finally the excerpts from “EXHIBIT SOO 14B” paragraphs

2 & 3 and the subsequent hand written minutes A (2&3) of the
National Commissioner for Legal Services, Alhaji Abubakar
Mohammed Esq. who later became the Governor of Bauchi
State, as he then was, are most instructive and read thus:
2. “Issues as to the correctness or otherwise of the initial grant

and the validity of same as well as the right to apply for
compulsory license under part 1 of the first schedule of the
Patents and Designs Act and the application for exemption from
liability of the Commission as a government agency upon
application made pursuant to part 11 of the said schedule may
be considered on the long run. Time here however seems to be of
essence. Resolution of these issues will almost certainly take a
while.”
3. “It is in view of the foregoing that I recommend the cause of

action stated in folio 64.”UNDERLINING FOR EMPHASIS.
Minute A
“Hon. Chairman
41
The whole file is relevant.
2. Folio 64 recommends invitation of the representatives of Bedding

Holdings Ltd. for discussion towards an amicable settlement which
together with para 4 above, I am in full agreement with.”
3. You may therefore wish to proceed as per folio 64 and also para
4 above.
Signed: Ch. L.S & C.C.

Dated 20th December 2006.
In finality and in an authoritarian tone, the erstwhile Chairman, Prof.

Maurice Iwu, of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, responded thus:
Minute B
Ch. L.S & C.C.
This could be a SCAM.

Patents are not usually granted on concepts but inventions. Pse let
us brief a Patent Attorney for representation.
Signed Ch. INEC

Dated 21st December 2006.
41.I know as a fact that the erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu of
the 1st Defendant/Respondent maligned the corporate personality and
integrity of the Plaintiff/Applicant by reason of his aforementioned
action(s) or inaction(s) and utterances.
42.That after the well legally considered and honest reports of the four
(4) member committee, who are all lawyers in the Legal Department
of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, which reports are referred to in
paragraphs 38, 39 & 40 above, the erstwhile Chairman of the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent hounded the committee members in a slubber
and official reckless action, transferring them out of headquarters to
obscure State Offices. Some of the committee members lived with
and accepted the transfer in good faith, while some resigned from the
1st Defendant/Respondents’ employment.As at today, one of the four
(4) - member Committee, Mrs. Oluwatoyin Babalola, is the
incumbent Director of Legal Services.
42
43.That a former Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, late Dr.
Abel Guobadia, in his book titled “REFLECTIONS OF A
NIGERIAN ELECTORAL UMPIRE” published by Mindex
Publishing Company Ltd. in 2009 narrated how the Federal
Ministry of Commerce, as it was then, confirmed that the
Plaintiff/Applicant had patented the Design Rights in and over the
Transparent Ballot Boxes. A Certified True Copy of the extract
and relevant pages (85 & 86) from the book is hereto attached
and marked as “Exhibit SOO14C”.
44.Part of the excerpts culled from page 86 of the above book are in
tandem with all aforementioned memos and reports, especially that
of the 1st Defendant/Respondent Legal Services Department and read
thus:
“…Just as we placed orders for the supply, one of the

Nigerian companies, Bedding Holdings Ltd, involved
in the supply drew our attention to the factthat it held
the patent and copyright design rights for the
production of the ballot boxes. It further threatened
court action if we were unwilling to negotiate with
them for their consent on the use of other vendors.
The Commission could ill afford the time for what
could be a protracted court action. The Secretary of
the Commission, Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, was God
sent. Prior to his tour of duty with the Commission,
he had been Permanent Secretary in the Federal
Ministry of Commerce. The Federal Ministry of
Commerce was the patent issuing body. He quickly
established contact with that ministry for the true
position. Legaladvice based on theevidence made
available to the Commission by theFederalMinistry
confirmed that the company, Bedding Holdings,
indeedhad patented andhad copyright design forthe
Transparent Ballot Box and we had to negotiate
termswith the company. Our terms of agreement with
the company included theemployment of other
vendors tosupply the quantity the company could not
handlegiven the shorttimeframe. In addition, the
company granted us the requisite licensetoallow local
producers to repair the several thousands of our
43
defectiveballot boxesthat were in various
states”.UNDERLINING FOR EMPHASIS
45.That the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents utilized, used and

continue to use an obvious imitation of the Collapsible Steel Frame
Structures which they described as Voting Cubicles referred to in
paragraph 16 above for the conduct of the 2007, 2011, 2015 &
2019 general elections and the bye-elections arising from same years
and in fact have used the said patented products/concepts for the
conduct of the Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa
States, held on Saturday the 16th of November, 2019 and indeed all
future elections in Nigeria to be conducted by the 1st
Defendant/Applicant, using all the aforementioned patented products
of the Plaintiff/Applicant, including but not limited to the
called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR);
Direct Data Capturing Machines (DDCM), and its derivable
Permanent Voters’ Card (PVC) and Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) embedded with the concept of the Coded
Metal Plate (CMP), for the Voters’ Register and/or the
Continuous Collation/ Compilation and Production of the
Voters’ Register using the Direct Data Capturing Machines
(DDCM) for registrations and its derivable database and associated
implements therefrom and the Process and Application of these
patented products and concepts to produce the Voters’ Register
respectively.
46.That since the agreement with the 1 st Defendant/Respondent for the

1999 elections by which it acquired 110,000 units of Transparent
Ballot Boxes (TBB), and its license by which it acquired another
230,000 units of (TBB) and the balance of 160,000 units for the
repair of existing ones for the 2003 elections making a total of
500,000 units which license expired on the 29th March, 2003; the 1st
Defendant/Respondent still retains the custody of the TBB’s and
requires the Plaintiff/Applicant’s license to continue to utilize these
existing total of 500,000 units of TBB and/or cannot initiate or
continue any FURTHER purchase, importation, supply,
production/and or repair of existing or new Transparent Ballot Boxes
or any obvious imitation thereof, without first seeking and obtaining
our written consent, license and authority.
44
47.Sometime in October, 2006, the Plaintiff/Applicant became aware
that the 1st Defendant/Respondent was preparing and making
arrangements with some persons for new production and supply of
“Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or the Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), with its integral implements of
Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR)” for use in the
general elections scheduled for April or May, 2007 or thereabout,
without the knowledge, written consent, authorization and license
of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
48.The 1st Defendant/Respondent was also preparing and further making

arrangements to use the Plaintiff/Applicant’s 500,000 Transparent
Ballot Boxes in the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s custody in the said
2007 general elections without obtaining from the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s license to that effect.
49.Consequently, the Plaintiff/Respondent instructed its Solicitors’ to

intimate and/or remind the 1st Defendant/Respondent of the
subsistence of its right in and over the Transparent Ballot Boxes
and/or the Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes
(ECTBB), with its integral implements of Electronic Card Reader
Card Reader (OCR) to seek the Plaintiff/Applicant’s consent/license
before taking further steps towards the use, production and supply of
the Plaintiff/Applicant’s subject of inventions, which instruction was
carried out vide a letter dated 18th October 2006 which was
acknowledged on the 20th of October 2006. A copy of our said
Solicitor’s letter dated 18th October 2006 is hereto attached and
marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 15”.
50.That for several weeks after the date stamp receipt of the 20th on the
above said letter of notice, nothing was heard from the 1st
Defendant/Respondent and there was no indication of any action
from the 1st Defendant/Respondents’ and/or its erstwhile Chairman,
Prof. Maurice Iwu’s end.
51.Then suddenly, in response to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Solicitors

letter, the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s erstwhile Chairman, Prof.
Maurice Iwu invited me to a meeting, which took place on the 15th
of November 2006.
45
52.At the meeting referred to in paragraph 24 above, which was one of
the two meetings held with the 1st Defendant/Respondent, the
erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu, attempted to induce and
procure the Plaintiff/Applicant to compromise on its claim in respect
of its legal rights and interests in Transparent Ballot Boxes, as
narrated below:
PARTICULARS OF INDUCEMENT
(i) Without any prompting, or any form of soliciting or bidding

by the Plaintiff/Applicant, 1st Defendant/Respondent’s
erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu offered the
Plaintiff/Applicant on a platter of gold, an urgent contract to
supply 10,000 units of laptops and other accessories for the
use of the botched 2006 Voters’ registration exercise (which
said contract had earlier been awarded to another company
that could not perform) at a unit cost of N283,000.00K (Two
Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand Naira) and a total
contract cost of N2,830,000,000.00K (Two Billion, Eight
Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand Naira) contrary to
the Due Process Guidelines, as it was common knowledge that
the Direct Data Capture Machines project were already giving
problems nationwide with the company that was awarded the
contract - Trenko International Ltd.
(ii) That the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s erstwhile Chairman,

Prof. Maurice Iwu requested the Plaintiff/Applicant at his
office to quickly bring its proposal for the execution of the
proposed contract in writing, stating its terms and conditions
of supply, to facilitate the contract; in the presence of Dr.
Ismael Igbani, (a National Commissioner of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent) as he then was, who as a matter of
fact linked and facilitated this meeting.
(iii) Later in the afternoon of this said meeting with erstwhile

Chairman, of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, Prof. Maurice
Iwu; he personally phoned me to reassure me inter-alia that:
“History will never forget the day you came into my office
if you are able to deliver the equipment timely” and he
promised unrestricted access to him thereof. This was then at
the heat of the moment as the said project had become a huge
source of embarrassment to his Chairmanship of the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent hence the desperate remedial action to
46
lift away the toga of non-performance. Despite the odds, he
was willing to deal with the Plaintiff/Applicant, though his
action(s) before now negates it.
(iv) It was obvious that this project was being offered as a

dangling carrot stick and a tradeoff for the Transparent
Ballot Boxes.
(v) After the said meeting, the 1 st Defendant/Respondent’s

erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu introduced meto
another 1st Defendant/Respondent’s National Commissioner,
Hon. NsaEkpeyong who headed as Chairman of the
committee set up to facilitate the acquisition of the said
equipment/laptops.
(vi) 1st Defendant/Respondent’s erstwhile Chairman, Prof.

Maurice Iwu also mandated the committee made up of two
(2) National Commissioners and a Deputy Director to visit
the Plaintiff/Applicant’s warehouse in Lagos to inspect the
equipment on ground. The inspection took place on the 20th of
November 2006. The letters to the 1st Defendant/Applicant
dated the 16th (2 letters) and 21st November, 2006 as well as
the Certified True Copies of the
st nd
1 Defendant/Respondent’s Internal Memo of the 22 of
November 2006 are hereto attached and marked
“EXHIBITS SOO 15A to 15D”.
(vii) After the submission of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s letters of 16th

(2 letters) of 21st of November, 2006, and the aforementioned
Commission’s memo of 22nd of November, 2006
recommending that the Plaintiff/Applicant be awarded the
contract, the Plaintiff/Applicant discovered to his chagrin that
on the 23rd of November, 2006 the 1st Defendant/Respondent
had taken a decision to award the contract for the acquisition
and supply of Transparent Ballot Boxes to other persons,
without its written consent, license or agreement, and/or any
agreement on the award of the contract for supply of the
laptops and other accessories which might have been a
consideration for the Plaintiff/Applicant to waive collection
of direct licensing/royalty fees on the Transparent Ballot
Box as was the casein 1999 and 2003.
47
53.I made efforts between the 23rd and 27th of November 2006 to meet
with the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Chairman, Prof. Maurice
Iwu, to find out why the steps taken as referred in paragraphs 31
and 34 above had been taken; but the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s
erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu, contrary to his promise of
granting the undersigned unfettered access, did not grant me an
audience and as a matter of fact; from his subsequent action(s),
turned me a personae – non – grata in his office and premises of the
1st Defendant/Respondent.
54.Despite the caveat by the letters of our Solicitors and the

recommendations of the Legal Services Department of the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent, as enumerated in paragraphs 36 to 40
above, the 1st Defendant/Respondent in defiance, utilized the old
boxes and caused to be ordered, supplied, purchased, imported and
produced new Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or the Electronic
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), with its integral
implements of Electronic Card Reader (ECR), also known and called
Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR) for the
2007 general electionsand has to date not obtained, the written
consent, license or agreement of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
55.In December, 2006, a newly incorporated limited liability company,

Messrs. Emchai Ltd. with 10,000.00 Share Capital, which had no
previous business relationship with the 1st Defendant/Respondent,
applied for the supply and production of (TBB) boxes to it for the
conduct of the 2007 general elections claiming to have the right
over the patented Ballot Boxes. When the Plaintiff/Applicant became
aware of the moves of the said company to infringe on its patented
product, it again requested its Solicitors to write a letter reminding
the 1st Defendant/Respondent of its patent rights in and over the
(TBB) and to desist from any act that was capable of infringing on
the patented rights of the Plaintiff/Applicant in and over the
Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) with its integral implements of
Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR) thereof.
56.In utter defiance and disregard of all the letters of warning,

publications and the recommendations of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent’s Legal Services Department as earlier
enumerated in related paragraphs above, particularly paragraphs 36
to 40 above and by memo titled: MEMORANDUM ON
48
COLLAPSIBLE BALLOT BOX SUBMITTED TO THE
ADHOC COMMITTEE ON SENSITIVE ELECTION
MATERIALS, written by one Engr. A. E. Ochala (Chairman,
Logistics and Transport Committee) the 1st Defendant/Respondent
awarded to the company, on the 15th December 2006, the contract
for the supply, manufacture, and importation of large quantity of
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes, to wit: 300,000 units of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s (TBB) at a unit cost of N18, 400.00 each for a
total contract sum of N5,520,000,000.00 (Five Billion, Five
Hundred and Twenty Million Naira). The Certified True Copy
each of the 1st Defendant/Respondent Memorandum on
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes submitted to it by its
Adhoc Committee on Sensitive Electoral Material and Award of
Contract letter dated 15th December, 2006 are hereto attached
and marked as “ EXHIBITS SOO 16 to 16A” respectively.
57.Notwithstanding the action(s) by the 1st Defendant/Respondent, our

Solicitor again wrote a letter dated 19th December, 2006 as requested
by the Plaintiff/Applicant and notified the 1st Defendant/Respondent
of our intention to take legal action. A copy of our said Solicitor’s
letter dated 19th December, 2006 is hereto attached and marked
as “EXHIBIT SOO 17”.
58.In spite of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Solicitor’s letter referred to in

paragraph 57 above, the 1st Defendant/Respondent has to date
failed to obtain the written consent, license or agreement of the
Plaintiff/Applicant for the production, acquisition, importation
and/or supply of Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) or its Improved
and Enhanced derivative, named: Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB).
59.That the said company “Emchai Ltd.” referred to in paragraph 55

above as disclosed on the face of the contract award letter marked as
“Exhibit 16A” later supplied additional 150,000 units of the (TBB)
to the 1st Defendant/Respondent, (using fraudulently and freshly
contrived documents) successfully sought and obtained the
ratification of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) for the award
of contract for the supply of yet another additional 150,000 units of
the Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes for the 2011 elections at a
unit cost of N13,000.00 (Thirteen Thousand Naira) making the
total contract sum of N1,950,000,000.00 (One Billion, Nine
Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) without, the prior written
consent and license of the Plaintiff/Applicant. The cumulative
49
financial implication to the Nigerian tax payers’ money of the
aforesaid periods are itemized below:
PARTICULARS OF (TBB) &/OR (ECTBB) PURCHASED FOR THE

1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 & 2019 ELECTIONS
Nos. Of (TBB) AMOUNTS
(i) 110,000 units of (TBB) acquired for 1999 elections N 528,000,000.00
(ii) 230,000 units of (TBB) acquired for 2003 elections N1,990,000,000.00
SUB TOTAL N2, 518,000,000.00
(iii) 300,000 units of (TBB) acquired for 2007 elections N5, 520,000,000.00
(iv) 150,000 units of (TBB) acquired for 2011 elections N1, 950,000,000.00
790,000 Sub-Total Units N12,506,000,000.00
(v) Procurement of (TBB) for 2019 elections ₦ 4,300.000.000.00
TOTAL:…………………………………………….…₦ 16,806,000,000.00
60.The decision of the (FEC) referred to in paragraph 59 above was

anchored on the memorandum presented to (FEC), which inter-alia
stated at paragraph 5 of exhibit SOO 18 as attached and referred
to below, that:
“While nothing that the company that supplied the boxes in 2006. Emchai
Limited has the patent to its design and specifications; and in order also to
maintain standardization, the Commission decided to adopt the direct
Procurement method in the award of the contract for the Transparent
Collapsible Ballot Boxes as provided in Section 42 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the
Public Procurement Act 2007” (Underlining supplied for emphasis)
61.It was on the premise of this well guided and deliberate

misinformation as quoted above, that the (FEC) proceeded to ratify
the memo presented to it as mentioned above.
A copy of the (FEC) Memorandum is hereto attached and

marked “Exhibit SOO 18”.
50
62.Despite the letters written to the 1 st Defendant/Respondent informing
them of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s subsisting patented rights over the
said (TBB) and the aforementioned Newspaper Publications to that
effect, the 1st Defendant/Respondent was still bent on making,
importing, stocking, selling or completing the contract process
mentioned in paragraph 55, 56 & 59 above and subsequently using
the TBB for the 2007 general elections and other elections, without
the written license, consent and approval of the Plaintiff/Applicant to
do so.
63.The importation of the above new (TBB) and/or use of the existing
500,000 (TBB) and the purchase, supply, import and production of
the new 450,000 (TBB) units; making a total of 950,000 units and/or
any additional purchase thereafter and/or contracts pertaining to the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s other patented product, (which includes but not
limited to the over 36,000 Voting Cubicles (VC) or any additional
purchases thereafter and contracts, without the written consent,
approval, and license of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
64.Arising from the above, the 1st Defendant/Respondent awarded the

contract for the supply of ourpatented products, (TBB) and Voting
Cubicles) without our written consent, license, and approval.
65.That in accordance with the custom relating to grant of patents by

Patent and Design/Intellectual Property owners and by World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and International
Trade Organization (ITO) standards, we are entitled to be paid
between 25%, 35% and/or 50% as licensing/royalty fee of the
contract cost of each unit patented product/concept licensed to be
used and/or produced, manufactured, imported, sell, stock, supply or
utilizing any product by 1stDefendant/Respondent themselves or
through any of their agents, representatives or privies from
reproducing the design of the Plaintiff/Applicant; which Judicial
Precedent is already established by the Judgment/Order of this
Honorable Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010, which copy
of the full Judgment and Enrolled Judgment Order are accordingly
annexed hereto and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 28 to 28A” referred
to at paragraph 74 below, which judgment is still subsisting.
66.That as a consequence of the custom relating to the grant of patents

by Patent and Design/Intellectual Property owners, World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), International Trade
Organization (ITO) Standards and the subsisting Judgment/Orders
51
of this Honourable Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010,
serving as a precedent, the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to be paid
₦47,987,369,933.50 (Forty-Seven Billion, Nine Hundred and
Eighty Seven Million, Three Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand,
Nine Hundred and Thirty-Three Naira, fifty Kobo Only) being
the 50% of the cumulative sum of ₦ 95,974,739,867.00 (Ninety-
Five Billion, Nine Hundred and Seventy Seventy-Four Million,
Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred and
Sixty-Seven Naira Only) being the minimum reasonable
licensing/royalty fees accruable to the Plaintiff/Applicant from the
yearly itemized breakdown of Budget Expenditure for years 2005,
2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2019 as follows:
PARTICULARS
Collapsible Polling Booths………………………₦10, 992, 000, 000.00
Transparent Ballot Boxes…………………………₦ 16,806,000,000.00
Smart Card Reader…………………………… ₦ 7, 052, 763, 600.00

Voters’ Register Database………………………₦ 61, 123,976,267.00
TOTAL:…………………………………. ……₦ 95,974,739,867.00
67.That the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st & 2nd

Defendant/Respondents, continued in their disobedience to the
subsisting Judgments and Orders of Court as aforesaid by
Continuing to Violate the patented rights of the Plaintiff/Applicant
by Continuously and Continually using our patented
products/concepts, which (includes but not limited) to an obvious
imitation of the Collapsible Steel Frame Structures which it
described as Voting Cubicles referred to in paragraph 33 & 34
above for the conduct of the 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 general
elections and the bye-elections arising from same years and the
Gubernatorial Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa States, held on
Saturday, 16th November, 2019 indeed all future elections in
Nigeria to be conducted by the 1st Defendant/Applicant, using all the
aforementioned patented products of the Plaintiff/Applicant,
including but not limited to the Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB)
and/or the Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes
(ECTBB) which integral part consists of the Electronic Card Reader
Card Reader (OCR); Direct Data Capturing Machines (DDCM),
and its derivable Permanent Voters’ Card (PVC) and Proof of
52
Address System Scheme (PASS) embedded with the concept of
the Coded Metal Plate (CMP), for the Voters’ Register and/or
the Continuous Collation/ Compilation and Production of the
(DDCM) for registration and its derivable database and associated
patented products and concepts to produce the Voters’ Register
respectively; without the written consent, approval, and license first
sought and obtained of the Plaintiff/Applicant. This is despite the
precedent that was already laid for such as mentioned in totality of
paragraph 36 (a) – (g) particularly paragraph 36 g (i) above as
exemplified by the execution of the License Agreement and
License of Right as attached thereto and marked as “EXHIBITS
SOO10 to 10B” above, coupled with the Judgments/Orders of this
Honourable Court delivered in Suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on 5th Day of June, 2012 and
28th Day of January, 2014 respectively. Details of such infractions
are hereto enumerated below, et al.
PARTICULARS
68.The Defendants/Respondents, particularly 1st & 2nd

Defendants/Respondents continued to manufacture, produce, import,
and use the TBB and other products of the Plaintiff/Applicant for
various elections all over the country. Some of the bye-elections,
Governorship elections and General elections conducted by the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent wherein they used the said TBB and other
patented products of the Plaintiff/Applicant, without the written
consent, approval, and license of the Plaintiff/Applicant; include the
governorship elections in Kogi State, Ekiti State, Anambra State
and Ondo State (amongst other elections) as enumerated below:
a) On Thursday 24th May 2007, the 1st Defendant/Respondent in

Oyo State using our same-patented products conducted another
election. A Certified True Copy of the NATION Newspaper of
Sunday 6th December, 2009 showing the photograph of two,
out of the numerous, TBB’s used is hereto attached and
marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 19”;
b) Another Certified True Copy of PUNCH Newspaper dated

Friday, 25th May, 2007 showing former Governor Ladoja of
Oyo State as he then was, putting his ballot in the TBB at an
53
election conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent, is hereto
attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 20”;
c) On Saturday, 15th December, 2007, another election was

conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent, using our same-
patented products showing the photograph of the said TBB being
used for the election with a police officer sitting-by. A Certified
True Copy of THE GUARDIAN Newspaper dated Monday
17th 2007, is hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO
21”;
d) On Saturday, 24th May, 2008, the 1st Defendant/Respondent used

the TBB and our other patented products to conduct a
Governorship bye-election in Bayelsa State. A Certified True
Copy of THIS DAY Newspaper of Sunday, 25th May, 2008
showing the photograph of the Vice President casting his vote
with the said TBB, is hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBIT SOO 22”;
e) On Saturday, 20th December, 2008, the 1st

Defendant/Respondent, using our same-patented products,
conducted another Governorship bye-election. A Certified True
Copy of the GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER of Sunday 21st
December, 2008 showing the Governor Segun Oni of Ekiti
State casting his vote, is hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBIT SOO 23”;
f) On Monday, 20th April, 2009, the 1st Defendant/Respondent

conducted another election during the Peoples Democratic
Convention in Abuja using our same-patented products. A
Certified True Copy of the PUNCH NEWSPAPER of
Tuesday, 21st April, 2009 showing the photograph of President
UmaruYar’Adua casting his vote, is hereto attached and
marked as “EXHIBIT SOO24”;
g) On Saturday, 6th February, 2010, the 1st Defendant/Respondent,

in Anambra State using our same-patented products, conducted
another Governorship election. A Certified True Copy of the
THIS DAY NEWSPAPER of Monday, 15 th February, 2010
showing the photograph of the said TBB being used for
election with voters on the queue, is hereto attached and
marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25”;
54
h) On Saturday, 10th April, 2010, the 1st Defendant/Respondent,
using our same-patented products, conducted a Local Government
Area Council election all over the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja. The Certified True Copies of THE NATION
Newspaper of Sunday, 11th April, 2010 and PUNCH
Newspapers of Monday, 12th April, 2010 showing photos of the
said TBB being used for the election of voters on the queue,
are hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 25A &
25B” respectively;
i) On Sunday, 15th July, 2012, the 1st Defendant/Respondent, in Edo

State using our same-patented products, conducted a
Governorship election. The Certified True Copy of THE
NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 15th July, 2012 showing
the photograph of the Governorship Candidate Adams
Oshiomole using the said TBB for election is hereto attached
and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25C”;
j) On Sunday, 15th July, 2012, the same Governorship election

referred to in paragraph 68 (i) was conducted by the 1st
Defendant/Respondent in Edo State using our same-patented
products. A Certified True Copy of THE NATION
NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 15th July, 2012 showing the
photograph of late Chief Anthony Anenih casting his vote
using the said TBB for election, is hereto attached and
marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25D”;
k) On Sunday, 15th July, 2012, the same Governorship election was

conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in Edo State using our
same-patented products. A Certified True Copy of THE
NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 15th July, 2012 showing
the photographs of various voters using the said TBB for
election, is hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO
25E”;
l) On Sunday, 15th July, 2012, at the same Governorship election

was conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in Edo State
using our same-patented products. The Certified True Copies of
THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 15th July, 2012 and
THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 15th of July,
2012 showing the photographs of the Governorship Candidate
Adams Oshiomole and another prominent Edo State citizen
(PDP Governorship Candidate, Maj. General Charles
55
Airviavbere using the said TBB for election, are hereto
attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25F & 25G”;
m) On Sunday, 21st October, July 2012, another Governorship

election was conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in Ondo
State using our same-patented products. A Certified True Copy
of THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 21 st October,
2012 showing the photograph of the Governorship Candidates
using the said TBB for election surrounded by other voters, is
hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25H”;
n) On Sunday, 21st October, 2012, the same Governorship election

was conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in Ondo State
using our same-patented products. A Certified True Copy of
THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday 21 st July, 2012
showing the photographs of various voters using the said TBB
and Collapsible Steel Frame Structures (otherwise called
Collapsible Polling Booths) renamed Voting Cubicles for
25I”;
o) On Sunday, 21st October, 2012, the same Governorship election

was conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in Ondo State
THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 21st October, 2012
showing the photographs of various voters on the queue using
the said TBB, cross checking their names on the displayed
voters’ register list compiled using our patented/concept of the
Direct Data Capturing Machines (DDCM), and its derivable
Permanent Voters’ Card (PVC) and Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) embedded with the concept of the
Coded Metal Plate (CMP) for the Voters’ registrations and/or
Continuous Collation/Compilation of the Voters’ Register for
25J”;
p) On Sunday, 17th November, 2013, the 1st Defendant/Respondent

conducted another Governorship election in Anambra State using
our same-patented products. A Certified True Copy of THE
GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 17th November, 2013
showing the photograph of the incumbent Minister of Labour
& Productivity, Dr. Chris Ngige casting his vote in the
Anambra Governorship election using the said TBB for
56
25K”;
q) On Sunday, 17th November, 2013, the same Governorship

election was conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in
Anambra State using our same-patented products. A Certified
True Copy of THISDAY NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 17 th
November, 2013 showing the photograph of the PDP
Governorship candidate Mr. Tony Nwoye alongside
incumbent Minister of Labour & Productivity, Dr. Chris
Ngige casting their vote in the Anambra Governorship
election using the said TBB for election, is hereto attached and
marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25L”;
r) On Sunday, 17th November, 2013, the same Governorship

election was conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in
True Copy of THE SUNDAY VANGUARD NEWSPAPER of
Sunday, 17th November, 2013 showing various voters casting
their votes in the Anambra Governorship election using the
said TBB for election, is hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBIT SOO 25M”;
s) On Sunday, 17th November, 2013, the same Governorship

election was conducted by the by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in
True Copy of THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 17 th
November, 2013 showing various voters casting their votes in
the Anambra Governorship election using the said TBB with
the then incumbent Governor Peter Obi using our patented
Collapsible Steel Frame Structures (otherwise called
Collapsible Polling Booths) renamed Voting Cubicles for
25N”;
t) On Wednesday, 25th March, 2015, various sample

designs/imitations of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s same-patented
products displayed by the 1st Defendant/Respondent, in the front
page of a daily National Newspaper. A Certified True Copy of
THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Wednesday, 25th March,
2015 showing various sample designs/imitations of our said
TBB for election, is hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBIT SOO 25O”;
57
u) On Sunday, 29th March, 2015, Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP)
Presidential Candidate, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, All Progressive
Candidate (APC), General Muhammadu Buhari, Bola Tinubu,
President of the Senate, Senator David Mark, Prof. Yemi
Osinbajo, former heads of State, Generals Abubakar and
Babangida and various other personalities casting their votes
using one of the various designs/imitations of our same-patented
TBB. A Certified True Copy of THE NATION
NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 29th March, 2015 showing the
various personalities casting their votes using one of the
various designs/imitations of our same-patented said TBB and
voting cubicle for election, is hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBIT SOO 25P”;
v) On Monday, 30th March, 2015, various designs/imitations of our

same-patented TBB products were displayed by by the 1 st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents with a voter (Kogi State Governor,
Yomi Awoniyi) casting his vote. A Certified True Copy of THE
NATION NEWSPAPER of Monday, 30th March, 2015
showing various designs/imitations of our said TBB being
used by Kogi State Governor, Yomi Awoniyi casting his vote
for election, is hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT
SOO 25Q”;
w) On Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, the 1st

Defendant/Respondent in a story captioned “INEC begins display
of Voters’ register today” essentially designed to clean up the
registers ahead of the 2019 general elections, in other words,
meaning bio-data derived from voters using one of our same-
patented products/concepts, vis: the Direct Data Capturing
Machines (DDCM), and its derivable Permanent Voters’ Card
(PVC) and Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) embedded
with the concept of the Coded Metal Plate (CMP) for the Voters’
registrations and/or Continuous Collation/Compilation of the
Voters’ Register. A Certified True Copy of THE NATION
NEWSPAPER of Wednesday, 7th November, 2018 showing the
article (news item) of the display of the voters’ register list
compiled using our patented/concept of the Direct Data
Capturing Machines (DDCM), and its derivable Permanent
Voters’ Card (PVC) and Proof of Address System/Scheme
(PASS) embedded with the concept of the Coded Metal Plate
(CMP) for the Voters’ registrations and/or Continuous
58
Collation/Compilation of the Voters’ Register for election, is
hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25R”;
x) On Sunday, 24th February, 2019, a National general election was

conducted by the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents, which is still
very fresh in the minds of Nigerians, tagged “Nigeria Decides”
THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 24th February, 2019
showing various voters casting their votes at a National
election using the said TBB with our patented Collapsible
Steel Frame Structures (otherwise called Collapsible Polling
Booths) renamed Voting Cubicles and Governor Ambode of
Lagos State casting his vote for election, is hereto attached
and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25S& 25S1”;
y) On the same Sunday, 24th February, 2019, a National general

election was conducted by the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents,
which is still very fresh in the minds of Nigerians, tagged
“Nigeria Decides” using our same-patented products. A Certified
True Copy of THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Sunday, 24 th
February, 2019 showing various voters including the
incumbent Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo casting their
votes at a National election using the said TBB for election, is
hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 25T”;
z) On Monday, 11th March, 2019, an election was conducted by the

1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents, which is still very fresh in the
minds of Nigerians, the incumbent Governor of Lagos State,
Babajide Sanwo-Olu was seen casting his vote in Ward 8, Unit
019, Eti-Osa Local Government Areaat a National general
election conducted by the 1st and 2nd defendant/Respondents,
THE NATION NEWSPAPER of Monday, 11th March, 2019
tagged “Nigeria Decides” and showing various voters casting
their votes at a National election using the said TBB for
25U”.
69.That on the 14th of October, 2010, the 3rd Defendant/Respondent

registered and issued Registration of Industrial Design Rights No.
NG/RD/2010/702 in and over the same invention of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Transparent Boxes (TBB) to one Messrs.
TAMBCO UNITED NIGERIA LIMITED despite the fact that the
59
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patent and Design Certificates in and over the
same product are earlier in time and are still subsisting to date.
70.That also on the same 14th October, 2010, the 3rd

Defendant/Respondent also caused to be registered and issued
Certificate of Registration of Industrial Design Rights No.
NG/RD/2010/708 to one ANOWAT PROJECT & RESOURCES
LIMITED in and over the same invention of the Plaintiff/Applicant
despite the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patent and Design Certificates in
and over the same product which are earlier in time and still
subsisting till date.
71.That Emchai Limited, a company also registered in Nigeria with

10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira Share Capital) as evidenced by
documents officially received from the Corporate Affairs
Commission dated 26th February, 2007, claimed to have a patent
right in and over one ENVOPAK BALLOT BOXES which is
opaque by design and it has her Certificate of Registration of Patent
over the opaque ENVOPAK BALLOT BOXES allegedly issued to
it by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent on 31st August 2006, in and over
a similar product of the Plaintiff/Applicant, which is earlier in time
and is still subsisting till date. A copy of their own documents
officially received from Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC)
dated 26th February, 2007 indicating a mere 10,000 Naira share
capital and rendering annual returns in a paltry sum of a
minimum of N1,000.00 and maximum of N3,000.00 to the CAC
as its annual return between year 1999 and 2009 is hereto
attached and marked “EXHIBIT SOO 26”.
72.That upon the Plaintiff/Applicant’s discovery of the multiple

registrations and issuance of Certificate of Patent Rights and/or
Designs Rights to TAMBCO UNITED NIGERIA LIMITED,
ANOWAT PROJECT & RESOURCES LIMITED and
EMCHAI LIMITED, in and over the exact product of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent and the fact
that the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents awarded contract in respect
of same, without the Plaintiff/Applicant’s written consent or license,
the Plaintiff Applicant commenced an action vide an Originating
Summons before this Honourable Court on 27th January, 2011
against the Defendants/Respondents herein, among others.
73.That this Honourable Court on the 5th day of June, 2012 in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 delivered its judgment nullifying all the
60
competing Patents and Design Rights mentioned in paragraphs
69 - 72 above, issued by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent and
granted all the Plaintiff/Applicant’s reliefs as prayed and also
gave a PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the
Defendants/Respondents, any other person or persons whosoever
from otherwise dealing with the said patented products of the
Plaintiff/Applicant EXCEPT with the express and prior written
consent, license and authority of the Plaintiff/Applicant to that effect.
The Certified True Copies of the Enrolled Orders of this
Honourable Court and the full script of the Judgment are hereto
attached and marked “EXHIBIT SOO 27 to 27A” respectively.
74.That this Honourable Court also on the 28th day of January, 2014 in
Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 between BEDDING HOLDINGS
LTD. vs. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 ors. delivered a judgment compelling
the Respondents herein to, among other orders, obtain from the
Plaintiff/Applicant, written license, consent and authority forthwith,
for the production, supply, acquisition, importation, procurement,
purchase, receipt, sale, of the products covered by the Patent and
Design Rights of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s, being the bona-fide
patentee of the Patent and Design Rights. The Certified True
Copies of the Enrolled Orders of this Honourable Court and the
full script of the Judgment are hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBIT SOO 28 to 28A” respectively.
75.That all Administrative options open to the Plaintiff/Applicant to

resolve this matter amicably have been exhausted, including our
petition/letter to the Honourable Attorney-General of the
Federation& Minister of Justice, Federal Ministry of Justice
(FMOJ) for his intervention in resolving this matter. A Copy of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s said Petition/Letter dated 10 th October,
2016 is hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 29”.
76.The 4thDefendant/Respondent, that is the Honourable Attorney-

General of the Federation (HAGF) & Minister of Justice in year
2017, based on the aforesaid petition/letter referred to in paragraph
75 above as “EXHIBIT SOO 29”, directed the then Solicitor
General/Permanent Secretary of the (FMOJ) to send letters of
invitation to the Plaintiff/Applicant and the 1st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents with a view to settling this matter amicably.
Subsequently, after several failed attempts to an agreeable date for
the meeting, it was finally slated for the 17th day of May, 2017 and
61
held on the same date with an all inclusive fifteen (15) persons
made up of top management staff and representatives of (FMOJ) in
attendance; which meeting was led and chaired by Mr. Taiwo
Abidogun, Esq. the Solicitor General of the
Federation/Permanent Secretary (SGF/PS) of (FMOJ), as he then
was, (for and on behalf of the 4th Defendant/Respondent), the
representatives of the 1st Defendant/Respondent led by its Director of
Legal Services (DLS), Mrs Oluwatoyin Babalola and
representatives of the Plaintiff/Applicant led by its lead legal
representative, Chief Assam Assam (SAN). Copies of the aforesaid
HAGF letters and minutes of the mediation meeting held on the
17th day of May, 2017; are hereto annexed and marked as
“EXHIBITS SOO 29A to 29E and are as respectively dated
below:
a. 29th of March 2017,

b. 12th of April 2017,
c. 2nd of May 2017,
d. 11th of May 2017and
e. Minutes of the (SGF/PS) mediation meeting of 17th day
of May, 2017.
Arising from the detailed minutes of the aforesaid (SGF/PS)

mediation meeting referred to in paragraph 76 above and attached
as “EXHIBIT SOO 29E”, are the highpoint excerpts of the
mediation minutes of the office of the 4th Defendant/Respondent
being the observations of the Chairman of the meeting as hereunder
partly paraphrased for ease of reference:
PARTICULARS OF HIGHPOINT EXCERPTS OF THE (SGF/PS)

MEDIATION MEETING OF 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2017
S/NO. DELIBERATION ACTION

BY
1. OPENING
91. The SGF/PS affirmed that INEC is still an SGF/PS

92. appendage of the Executive and asked whether
93. INEC was aware that any action or inaction
94. attributable to INEC eventually becomes a burden
95. of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
96. The SGF/PS stated further that no law prohibits SGF/PS
62
97. exploratory discussions around decisions of court
98. aimed at an outcome that will assuage all parties
99. in national interest.
113. The SGF/PS concluded that there is urgent need SGF/PS

114. for INEC to reappraise its legal position in order
115. to avoid a situation where the hardened position
116. taken becomes detrimental to national interest; …
e.t.c
77.That the 1st Defendant/Respondent even after the two (2)

Judgments/Orders of this Honourable Court delivered in Suit Nos.
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on the
5th Day of June, 2012 and the 28th Day of January, 2014
respectively, went ahead to use the Transparent Ballot Boxes
(TBB) and Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes
(ECTBB) with its integral implements of Electronic Card Reader
Card Reader (OCR) in conducting the Gubernatorial election in
Anambra, Ekiti and Osun States in 2014; the 2015 General
elections; the 2018 Gubernatorial elections held in Anambra, Ekiti
and Osun States respectively, without the written consent and
approval of the Plaintiff/Applicant first sought and obtained in total
disregard to the Orders of this Honourable Court forbidding them
from doing so. The Certified True Copies of the Newspaper
publications of these elections published in The Nation of Sunday
22nd June, 2014, Sunday Newswatch of Sunday 10th August, 2014;
The Guardian of Sunday, 10th August, 2014; The Nation of
Sunday, 21st of February, 2016 and The Nation of Wednesday,
11th May, 2016 and The Nation of Sunday, 23rd September, 2018
are hereto attached and marked “EXHIBITS SOO 30 to 30E
respectively.
78.That the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents, in deliberate and further

contempt and disobedience of the order of this Honourable Court,
have further used the Plaintiff’s patented products, which includes
but not limited to, the Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or the
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) which
integral part consists of the Electronic Card Reader (ECR), also
63
known and called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader
(OCR); Direct Data Capturing Machines (DDCM) and its
derivable Permanent Voters’ Card (PVC) and Proof of Address
System Scheme (PASS) embedded with the concept of the Coded
Metal Plate (CMP), for the Voters’ Register and/or the
Continuous Collation/ Compilation and Production of the
(DDCM) for registration and its derivable database and associated
patented products and concepts to update the Voters’
Registerand our patented Collapsible Steel Frame Structures
(otherwise called Collapsible Polling Booths) renamed Voting
Cubiclesrespectively; for the conduct of the Gubernatorial
Elections for Kogi and Bayelsa States, held on Saturday, 16th
November, 2019.
79.That in addition to the just concluded Gubernatorial elections for

Kogi and Bayelsa States, held on 16th November, 2019 it is evident
from the Timetable published by the 1st Defendant/Applicant for the
2019 General elections, the Gubernatorial elections for Anambra,
Edo, Ondo, Ekiti and Osun States and all other up-coming
elections that will be conducted by the 1 st and 2nd
Defendants/Respondents from year 2020, using all the
aforementioned patented products of the Plaintiff/Applicant, without
the written consent and approval of the Plaintiff/Applicant first
sought and obtained in total disregard to the Judgments/Orders of
this Honourable Court forbidding them from doing so. The Certified
True Copy of the publication by the 1 st Defendant/Respondent of
the Timetable for the 2019 General elections in PUNCH
Newspaper of Tuesday, 5th January, 2018 is hereto attached and
marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 31”.
80.That the Plaintiff/Applicant has continued to suffer great financial

loss and hardship due to the act(s) of the Defendants/Respondents,
particularly the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents in deliberately
refusing to pay licensing/royalty fees accruable to the
Plaintiff/Applicant for the patented materials used by the 1 st and 2nd
Defendants/Respondents for conducting past General Elections and
other elections between 2007 and 2019 cycle of election years,
despite the fact that there were generous budget appropriations
and funding for every election cycle for each of the patented
materials illegally used. A Certified True Copy of the Nation
Newspaper publication dated Saturday, 27th October, 2018
64
attesting to the above assertion is hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBIT SOO 32”.
81.That in spite of the Judgments/Orders of this Honourable Court, the

1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents continued to neglect, comply with
or abide by the orders of this Hononrable Court. The 1st
Defendant/Respondent in brazen disregard of the Orders of this
Honourable Court, continued to make pronouncements with respect
to the Continuous Voters Registration Exercise (CVR) at different
times leading up to the end of year 2018. The Certified True
Copies of the Nation Newspapers of Friday, 7th February, 2014;
of Friday, 28th August, 2015 and of Thursday, 27th April, 2017
are herewith attached and marked as “EXHIBITS 33 to 33b”.
82.That the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st and 2nd

Defendants/Respondents are aware of the existence of the Judgments
and Orders of this Honourable Court as they were published in The
Nation Newspapers of Wednesday 4th of July 2012 in respect of
Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 in respect of (TBB) and (ECTBB)
and the Plaintiff/Applicant’s letters of demand in respect of the
judgment debt in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 through its
Counsel dated 12th February, 2014. The Certified True Copies of
the aforementioned Newspaper and letters to the 1st and 2nd
Defendants/Respondents are hereto attached and marked as
“EXHIBITS 34 to 34B.
83.That further notifications to the public domain, especially to the

Defendants/Respondents and particularly to the 1st
Defendant/Respondent in respect of the Enrolled Orders after the
Judgment in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11, which additional
publications (inserting the full script of the enrolled Judgment Orders
for the avoidance of doubt) were made by the Plaintiff/Applicant in
the following Newspapers:
(i) THIS DAY Newspaper of Tuesday 19th of June 2012;

(ii) THE GUARDIAN Newspaper of Tuesday 19th of June 2012;
(iii) THIS NATION Newspaper of Tuesday 19th of June 2012;
(iv) DAILY TRUST Newspaper of Tuesday 19th of June 2012.
The Certified True Copies of the above Newspapers are hereto

attached and marked “EXHIBITS 35 to 35c”.
65
84.That resulting from the serial disregard for rule of law and the
wanton disobedience of this Honourable Court’s Judgments/Orders
by the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents, with particular reference to the
Originating Summons in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011, which
Judgment was delivered on the 5th day of June, 2012 as earlier
enumerated above; a contempt proceedings was instituted against the
Defendants/Respondents, especially the 1st Defendant/Respondent,
for which Forms 48 and 49 were duly issued and served, the leave
of Court was sought and obtained on 28th day of August, 2012.
The aftermath Ruling on the contempt proceedings was delivered on
the 28th day of May, 2013 in which this Honourable Court agreed
with all the reliefs sought but in its wisdom was minded to stay the
proceedings in the contempt committed against its judgment
pursuant to the omnibus prayer. Also, the same disrespect and
recalcitrant approach was exhibited in disregard for rule of law and
wanton disobedience of this Honourable Court’s Judgments/Orders
towards a subsequent Judgment/Orders, obtained by Writ of
Summons in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010; which Judgment
was delivered on the 28th day of January, 2014 as earlier
enumerated. The Certified True Copies of the duly issued and
served Forms 48 and 49, the Certified True Copies of this
Honourable Court’s Order granting the leave for contempt
dated 29th of August 2012, Ruling dated 28th May 2013 and
relevant Newspaper stories cataloguing an array of news items
relating to the said disobedience of valid and subsisting
judgments in This Day Newspaper of Monday, 14 th April, 2014,
The Nigerian Tribune Newspaper of Monday, 14 th April, 2014
and This Day Newspaper of Monday, 14th April, 2014 are hereto
attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 36 to 36E.
85.That the Plaintiff/Applicant avers that the Electronic Collapsible

Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), which integral part features the
Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader, which is an Enhanced and
Improved derivative of the Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB), which
the two (2) Judgments/Orders of this Honourable Court had
expressly confirmed the Plaintiff/Applicant as the bona-fide owner
of the Patent and Design Rights in and over the (ECTBB) in Suit
Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on
5th day of June, 2012 and 28th Day of January, 2014, as
particularly ordered in Reliefs 3 and 1 respectively, in both
subsisting Enrolled Judgment Orders. The Plaintiff/Applicant’s
66
Certified True Copies of the Patent Right No. RP. 1662 and
Design Right No. RD. 13841 in and over the (ECTBB), as
encapsulated above which includes the details of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Specifications, drawings and Literature on
(ECTBB) are hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO
37 to 37A.
86.That the 1st Defendant had severally awarded contracts for the supply
of Smart Card Reader (SCR), also known as Electronic Card
Reader (ECR) or Optical Card (OCR) for the General election
circles for/from years 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019, without the
written consent and approval of the Plaintiff/Applicant first sought
and obtained.
PARTICULARS OF SMART CARD READER (SCR) OR

OPTICAL CARD READER (OCR) OR ELECTRONIC CARD
READER (ECR) AND ASSOCIATED MODIFICATIONS
THERETO AS PURCHASED BY THE 1ST
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
i. SCR Hard Ware Modifications

for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)..................₦4, 258,820,000.000.00
ii. Purchase of charging Banks (24 port) for SCR’s
for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)………..…₦ 89,200,000.00
iii Purchase of 24 port software upgrade systems for SCR’s

for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)………...…₦ 72,955,500.00
iv Purchase of SCR’s replacements for SCR’s

for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)…………...₦ 1, 052,496,900.00
v Purchase of applicable battery life span check machine

for SRC’s for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)…..₦ 84,000, 000.00
vi Software upgrade of Card Reader for verification

and authentication of voters (at PU level)
for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)……………₦ 20,158, 320.00
vii Upgrade of PVC & SCR’s accreditation backend

for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)………………₦ 84,000, 000.00
viii Smart Card Reader Software upgrade for INEC Voter

authentication system (IVAS) an improvement of its
AFIS software for 2019 elections
67
(supplementary budget)……………………………₦ 47,138, 000.00
iv Replacement of aging SCR batteries and

SAM Cards for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)…₦ 1 049,994, 880.00
X Purchase of new SIMs with special registration with

NCC-for SCR’s and other devices for data transmission
(with data bundles) for 2019 elections
TOTAL:…………………………………… ₦ 7, 052, 763, 600.00
87.That the Plaintiff/Applicant loses an estimated minimum of

N10,000,000,000.00 (Ten Billion Naira) for every election circle
from years 2007, 2011, 2015 & 2019 inclusive of all bye-elections
during these periods, using the Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented
products and/or concepts, to wit: Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB);
Electronic Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) with the integral
or individual Smart Card Reader (SCR), Electronic Card
Reader (ECR) also know as Optical Card Reader (OCR); Proof
of Address System/Scheme (PASS) embedded with the concept of
the Coded Metal Plate (CMP) with its derivable Permanent
Voters’ Card and the Process and application of these products
to produce the Voters Register and/or the Continuous
Collation/Compilation and Production of the Voters’ Register
using the Direct Capturing Machines (DDCM) for registrations
and its derivable database and Process and Application of these
patented products and concepts to produce the Voters’ Register and
its associated implements therefrom and our patented Collapsible
Steel Frame Structures (otherwise called Collapsible Polling
Booths) renamed Voting Cubicles respectively, without the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s consent, license and authorization.
PARTICULARS OF DDC MACHINES FOR THE VOTERS’

REGISTER DATABASE AND OTHER ANCILLARY
IMPLEMENTS THEREOF AS PURCHASED BY THE 1ST
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
i. Printing of Voter’s Cards as derivable from the
compilation of the Voter’s Register for 2005......................₦ 2,701,920,442.00
ii. Voter’s Register for 2006..............................................₦ 3,954,300,000.00
iii. Permanent Voters’ Cards for 2006...................................₦ 3,000,000,000.00
68
iv. Electronic Voting Machines for 2006...............................₦20,000,000,000.00
v. Update & consolidation of continuous

Voters’ Registration for 2009..................................................... ₦ 20,000,000.00
vi. National Voters’ Registering Backup
in Abia State for 2009...................................................₦ 482,135.00
vii. Upgrade of Voter’s Card Centre/Provision

of base Card for 2010....................................................₦ 700,000,000.00
viii. Integration of Supplemetary list into

Voters’ Register for 2010...............................................₦ 70,000,000.00
ix. Production of soft copy for the

Voters’ Register for 2010................................................₦ 5,000,000.00
x. Data base security and general data transfer to Central

Servers for update of National Voter Register for 2010...........₦ 60,000,000.00
xi. Production of Voter Register for 2010...............................₦ 160,000,000.00

xii. Procurement of Continuous Voters Registration
Materials (CVR) for 2019……………………………..₦ 210,000,000.00
xiii. Printing of Register of Voter for display for

identification of ineligible registratnts
including clean-up for 2019…………………………....₦ 562,159,800.00
xiv. Printing of Register of Voter for display for identification

of ineligible registratnts including clean-up for 2019……….₦1, 199,730,000.00
xv. Nation-wide Continuous Voter Registration (CVR) exercise
of Voter for display for identification of ineligible registratnts
including clean-up for 2019…………………………....₦3, 124, 473, 950.00
xiii. Printing of Register for Election and

Publication of Register for 2019…………………….....₦1, 612,615,600.00
xiv. Readiness Assurance for CVR execrcise & PVC collection

to determine the level of prepredness of the acivities in
the States and LGA’s for 2019…………..……………..₦ 40,630,000.00
xv. Research Studies: Application of ICT to electoral process in
Nigeria - The use of Smart Card Reader
in Nigeria for 2019……………………..……………..₦ 116,550,000.00
69
xvi. Conduct of Training for Continuous Voter Registration
Officials at RA’s levels for 2019…………………………₦ 150,000,000.00
xvii. Updating of Software for the Electronic Voters

Registration (EVR) Database for 2019……………….……₦ 103,000.000.00
xviii. Updating of Software for the Electronic Voters

Registration (EVR) Database for 2019……………………..₦ 70,327,700.00
xix. Printing of Permanent Voters’ Cards from CVR Exercise &

outstanding as well as replacement of PVC’s for 2019……….₦1, 650,000.000.00
xx. Distribution of Permanent Voters’ Cards from CVR Exercise &

outstanding as well as replacement of PVC’s for 2019………..₦ 61,147.800.00
xxi. Upgrade of Server Version of open Voters’ Registration for

compactability with new Del Server for 2019……………….₦ 99, 750,000.00
xxii. Migration of the Voter Registration Database from MySQL
Open Source to Racle DB for 2019…………………….….₦ 800,000.000.00
xxiii. Voter Registration Expenses (CVR) for 2019……….……₦ 8, 823,109.340.00
xxiv. Voters Registers for 2019………………………...…..₦ 532,951, 700.00
xxv. Permanent Voter Cards for 2019…………………….…₦ 7, 711,147.800.00
xxvi. DDC Machines for 2019…………………….………..₦ 3, 584,680.000.00
TOTAL:…………………………………………………. ₦ 61, 123,976,267.00
88.That as a corollary of the Judgment/Orders relating to Suit No.:

FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 as enumerated above, the monetary
Judgment of ₦17, 258,820,000.000 (Seventeen Billion, Two
Hundred and Fifty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty
Thousand Naira only) that was awarded in favour of the
Plaintiff/Applicant; which enforcement was followed up with
Garnishee Order Nisi proceedings that commenced on the 26th
September, 2019 against the Defendants/Judgment
Debtors/Central Bank of Nigeria towards the realization of the
Judgment debt and was granted on the 15th October, 2018, to wit:
directing them to deposit the Judgment sum with costs entered on the
Summons within eight (8) days with the Court in a Garnishee
Proceeding in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/492/2018. That till date the
Garnishee Debtors/Garnishee Respondents have omitted, refused,
70
and/or neglected to comply with this order. The Certified True
Copies of the Garnishee Order Nisi dated 15 th October, 2018
together with the Summons; our Solicitor’s letters dated 12 th
February, 2019; 23rd of April, 2019 and the 4th Defendant
Garnishee/Debtor/Respondent’s letter dated 10th July, 2019
respectively are hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS
SOO 38 to 38D.
PARTICULARS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS, PARTICULARLY THE 1st
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT’S ECONOMIC SABOTAGE
AGAINST THE ENTREPRENEURIAL & CREATIVE
INGENUITY OF THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT & FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
89.That there were major illegal acts, other contracts infractions and
criminal conspiracies leading to the procurement of electoral
materials for the 2007 General elections, of monumental
proportions and dimensions using the guided tools and
instrumentality of officialdom in an unprecedented grand scam,
which included the patented products/concepts of the
Plaintiff/Applicant that led to this Honourable Court’s subsisting
Judgment/Orders delivered in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 on
5th of June, 2012, nullifying all competing Patents and Design
Certificates of Emchai Limited, Tambo United Nigeria Limited
and Anowat Project & Resources Limited (as per reliefs 2, 4 & 5
of the said Enrolled Judgment Orders) against the backdrop of
illegal and fraudulent procurement of Patent and Design Certificates
for products to wit: Transparent Ballot Boxes (TBB) and/or
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), or any
obvious imitation thereof, which had already been registered in
favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant, being first in time, by the 3rd
90.That in relation to the impropriety of the contract awarded to

Emchai Ltd. referred to in paragraphs 55, 56, and 59 above; the
company further went ahead to source and supply an obvious
imitation and substandard boxes from the far East.A “… (pictorial
display) of a processed polythene bag named Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Box as per your description…” which
information was derived from a secret document, as evidenced as per
‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 39” below, indicating that a unit cost of the box
was £7.89. In 2006, Naira to the pound was about N230.00 or
71
thereabout, which implication translate to a mere N1,815.85k (One
Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifteen Naira, Eighty- Five Kobo)
per unit and that the contract was obviously over inflated to the
knowledge of the 1st Defendant, which was why they went to every
length and broke all rules to justify the award of the contract to the
company. A copy of the email print out (of the aforesaid exposed
secret document) indicating cheaper cost of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Transparent Box from the far East is hereto
91.That despite the foregoing, in order to perfect the untoward

purported contract for the supply of 300,000 units of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes
by Emchai Ltd. the company and the 1st Defendant/Respondent
(under the leadership of Prof. Maurice Iwu, conferred undue
advantage on the company when he (Prof. Maurice Iwu)
surreptitiously issued a document titled:- MEMORADUM ON
COLLAPSIBLE BALLOT BOX SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMISSION BY THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON
SENSITIVE ELECTION MATERIALS referred to in paragraph
56 as “EXHIBIT SOO 16” above, containing the names of the
three (3) companies fielded to bid for the said contract.
92.That of the three (3) companies that bidded for the so called contract
selective tendering, the following infractions were established:
a) That the name – CASS Engineering Nig. Ltd. was a

company being promoted by the Chairman, Prof.
Maurice Iwu of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, when he
was the Chairman. The said company had insufficient share
capital of 100,000 with which it bidded for the procurement
of a Multi-billion Naira contract for the supply of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented Collapsible Transparent
Boxes. The said company does not have a known or fixed
address;
b) That the name – Stusal Engineering Ltd. is a non-existent

company used by the 1st Defendant/Respondent under the
administration of Prof. Maurice Iwu, to fulfill the process
of selective tendering for the said multi-billion Naira
contract;
72
c) That the favoured company – Emchai Ltd. in addition to
the fake patent used for bidding and securing the said
multi-billion Naira contract, had insufficient Share Capital
of 10,000 with which it bidded for and secured the contract
for the procurement of the said Multi-Billion Naira
patented Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes of the
Plaintiff/Applicant. It is evident by their own (CAC
document) referred to in paragraph 50 as “EXHIBIT
SOO 26B” above, Emchai Ltd. had insufficient share
capital of just 10,000.00 with which it bidded for and
secured the said Multi-Billion Naira contract and was
rendering annual returns in a paltry sum of N1,000.00
to N3,000.00 to CAC between 1999 2009 for a company
that secured a Multi-Billion contract within the period
under reference. Copies of Affidavit of Non-Service
sworn to by a bailiff of this Honourable Court of non-
location of addresses of the above named companies in
paragraphs 92 (a, b & c) above, CAC documents
relating to averment made in respect of aforementioned
company in paragraph 92 (a) above, CAC documents
relating to averment made in respect of aforementioned
company in paragraph 92 (b) above and CAC
documents relating to averment made in respect of
aforementioned company in paragraph 92 (c) above are
hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 39A
to 39D”.
d) That despite the high level impropriety involved in the

award of the above contract, resulting from the grand style
stolen patents,culminating in the astronomical loss to the
Plaintiff/Applicant and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the
erstwhile Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent,
Prof. Maurice Iwu using the guided tools and
instrumentality of officialdom, caused an
“APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION/WAIVER OF
IMPORT DUTIES/OTHER TAXES AND PRE-
SHIPMENT INSPECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE
MATERIALS FOR 2007 GENERAL ELECTIONS”
conferred undue advantage on the company Emchai
Limited, by misleading the FEC and the former President
Obasanjo to approve the said application on: (i) Ballot
papers; (ii) Result forms (EC8 Series); (iii) Ballot Boxes;
(iv) Seals; (v) Tampa Evident Envelops; and (vi) Indelible
73
ink. He told the President in the said letter, which excerpts
read thus:
“I humbly seek Mr. President’s kind approval for

exception on the following items: (i) Import duty
exemption on materials accessories; (ii) 0.5% ECOWAS
Trade liberalization Schemes (ETLS); (iii) Vat and
Taxes; (iv) Port Charges; (v) Exemption from pre-
shipment inspection”.(Underlining supplied for
emphasis)
e) From the above statement, it is clear that the erstwhile

Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, Prof. Maurice
Iwu, in its aforesaid letter to the former President had the
intention to further mislead him by stating as follows:
“May I point outthat these extra taxes and fees will only
increase the total expenditure of the general elections if they
are not waived for the Commission. I believe such additional
cost can be avoided in the best interest of the nation”.
(Underlining supplied for emphasis).
f) That this fundamental misrepresentation of facts and

information caused the former President to approve in
error Billions of Naira waiver/refund of revenue due the
Federal Government apart from benefiting from the
aforementioned multiple waivers, EMCHAI LIMITED,
using this approval collected back ₦552,000,000.00 (Five
Hundred and Fifty Two Million Naira) being
deductions of 5% Tax and 5% Vat respectively, with the
backing of the erstwhile Chairman of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent, Prof. Maurice Iwu, shy of the
purchase amount of ₦544,755,000.00 (Five Hundred
Forty-Four Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Five
Thousand Naira) actually paid for the 300,000 units of
processed polythene bags named Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Box in 2006/2007. This means by
implication: that EMCHAI LIMITED and its
collaborators got additional ₦7, 245, 000.00 (Seven
Million, Two Hundred and Forty Five Thousand Only)
to their credit, carting away Billions of Naira of the
Federal Government of Nigeria, Tax payers monies and the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s money, without spending a dime. A
74
copy of the Application For Exemption/Waiver Of
Import Duties/Others Taxes AND Pre-Shipment
Inspections In Respect Of Materials For 2007 General
Elections and the approval letter for Presidential
waiver, the 1st Defendant/Respondent letter of contract
award and the Payment Voucher for initial payment of
50%, the Voucher used to claim the refunds, a plethora
of Newspaper publications capturing the unfolding
events as it relates to perpetration of alleged fraud et el
in Sunday Punch Newspaper of 3rd September, 2006,
Saturday Sun Newspaper of 24th March, 2007, Sunday
Times Newspaper of 25th March, 2007 are hereto
attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 40 to 40F”.
g) That the above was achieved by misleading and literally

blackmailing the former President with the astronomical
cost of election materials, as stated in the letter, which
excerpt in part read thus:
“if they were not exempted from import duties, VAT

and other Taxes”. (UNDERLINING FOR EMPHASIS)
h) That detailed below is a breakdown of the actual

expenditure that shows glaringly the excess credit to
Emchai Ltd. and its collaborators in respect of the same
contract without spending a dime, to wit:
PARTICULARS OF THE BREAKDOWN OF CONTRACT SUM

FOR 300,000 COLLAPSIBLE TRANSPARENT BALLOT BOXES
- 300,000 units of Boxes at ₦18,000.00 per unit……………………..₦5,400,000,000.00

- 300,000 units of Pre-numbered Seals at ₦400.00 per unit………… . ₦120,000,000.00
- Total Contract sum (as awarded)………………………………...… ₦5,520,000,000.00
Less:-
Actual cost price of boxes as imported
(300,000 units at N1,815.85k)…………………………..…………. ₦554,000,000.00
- Gross profit to Emchai Ltd. and collaborators……………………….₦4,975,245,000.00
Add: TAX WAIVER
- Tax waiver refunded on contract to
Emchai Ltd. on (WHT & VAT)……………………………………. ₦552,000,000.00
- Total money collected by Emchai Ltd. ………………………...……₦5,527,245,000.00
ABNORMAL PROFIT ANALYSIS

Total money collected by Emchai Ltd……………………………₦5,527,245,000.00
- Total Contract cost (as awarded)……………………………….. ₦5,520,000,000.00
- Additional and Excessive profit outside
75
Contract cost as awarded………………………………….₦7,245,000.00 (Additional
abnormal Profit to
Emchai and
collaborators)
i) That from the simple arithmetic calculation stated above,

Emchai Ltd. and its co-conspirators carted away
₦5,520,000,000.00 (Five Billion, Five Hundred and
Twenty Million Naira) plus N7, 245,000.00 (Seven
Million, Two Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand Naira)
making the total sum of ₦5,527,245,000.00 (Five Billion,
Five Hundred and Twenty-Seven, Two Hundred and
Forty-Five Thousand Naira) without spending a dime;
facilitated by the guided tools and instrumentality of
officialdom being another form of economic sabotage of
the highest order perpetrated and supported by the
erstwhile Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent,
Prof. Maurice Iwu and its other staff. By this action, the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s money (licensing/royalty fee) was
carted away by Emchai Ltd. and its collaborators, being
the rightful owner of the Intellectual Property Right as
adjudged by this Honorable Court in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11, which judgment was delivered on 5th
of June 2012;
j) Yet undone, the 1st Defendant/Respondent under the

erstwhile Chairmanship of Prof. Maurice Iwu, sustained
the unwholesome activities when it misrepresented facts to
the FEC by applying and causing a memo to be issued,
referred to at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, which memo is
attached as “EXHIBIT SOO 18”. By the blatant falsehood
as stated in the said memo as specifically referred to at
paragraph 60 above, he successfully sought and obtained
the ratification of FEC, using the guided tools and
instrumentality of officialdom, for the award of the contract
for the supply of yet a new 150,000 units of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented products at a unit cost of
N13,000.00 making the total contract sum of ₦1,
950,000,000.00(One Billion, Nine Hundred and Fifty
Million Naira) without the prior consent, license and
authority of the Plaintiff/Applicant;
k) That despite the persistent and inflationary trends which

abound world over that remains a challenge to world
76
economies, Nigeria inclusive, yet Emchai Ltd. gave the 1st
Defendant/Respondent and the FEC a discount of
N5,400.00per unit of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s stolen
product/patent, which cost N18,400.00 as awarded by the
1st Defendant/Respondent in 2006 and now N13,000.00 per
unit in 2010; that is four (4) clear years up the line,
notwithstanding the humongous inflationary trends that
abounds. A Certified True Copy of Newspaper
publication, THE NATION of Thursday, 25th
November, 2010 making known to the world the award
of the contract for the supply of yet a new 150,000 units
of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented products, which
was obtained under falsehood and misrepresentation of
facts by the 1st Defendant is hereto attached and
marked “EXHIBIT SOO 40G”.
l) That by four (4) separate letters dated 15th July, 2010; 27th
July, 2010; 27th July 2010 and 1st of November, 2010
respectively, the Plaintiff/Applicant informed the
addressees of the acts of conspiracy, forgery and obtaining
by fraud, legal documents under false pretense in respect of
the its Patents and Copyright Designs relating to the
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes by the
Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st
Defendant/Respondent; urging them to invoke their
statutory powers to investigate all the aforementioned
infractions. Copies of the four (4) separate letters dated
15th July, 2010; 27th July, 2010; 27th July 2010 and 1st of
November 2010 respectively are hereto attached and
marked “Exhibits SOO 40H to 40K”.
93.That sometime in the 2nd week of May, 2007, I was invited at the
instance of Mr. Ken Nnamani, Senate President of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, as he then was, to meet with him personally;
wherein he informed me of a Senate Public Hearing that was
coming up at the twilight of his Presidency of the Senate that had to
do with the activities of the 1st Defendant/Respondent relating to its
maladministration of expenditure, double budgeting and
misappropriation of allocated Funds for the 2007 General
Elections, to which he said National Assembly (NASS) especially
the Senate were inundated with a plethora of allegations and
petitions against the 1st Defendant/Respondent, particularly its
77
leadership in the person of its erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice
Iwu.
a. In furtherance to the above inquiry at the said meeting with

Senate President, I retorted aloud to his hearing and
wondered how was I involved and/or concerned with this
upcoming Senate Public Hearing on the afore-stated activities
of the 1st Defendant/Respondent? This, to my mind, was more
or less an inquest. He responded that, it had come to his
knowledge and that of the National Assembly and that indeed
it was public knowledge of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s (of whom
I am the Group Executive Chairman/CEO) participation in
some major projects executed for the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent, that resulted in an imbroglio with
the 1st Defendant/Respondent and its erstwhile Chairman,
Prof. Maurice Iwu, which were part of the subject terms of
reference of the proposed Public Hearing vis-à-vis the travails
of the Plaintiff/Applicant theretofore; and that in view of this,
the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was concerned
and consequently inclined to invite me as the CEO of
Plaintiff/Applicant company to shed some light. To this end, I
sought some personal assurances to my personal safety and
subsequently requested a formal letter of invitation to this
effect;
b. Before departing the presence of the Senate President, he

referred me to one Senator Emmanuel Azu Agboti, as the
man in charge to interact with and that he shall be relating
with me accordingly;
c. During my interaction with Senator Emmanuel Azu Agboti,

(who turned out to be the Chairman of the Ad-hoc
Committee), I narrated part of the grievances of the
Plaintiff/Applicant as follows:
(i) That the failure or refusal of the 1st Defendant under the
leadership of erstwhile Chairman, Prof Maurice Iwu,
to seek and obtain the requisite authorization and
approval from the Plaintiff/Applicant before using its
Patented Products/Concepts which was a marked
departure from what obtained in 1999 and 2003;
78
(ii) The failure and the refusal of the 1st Defendant in 2005
under the leadership of erstwhile Chairman, Prof.
Maurice Iwu to pay the contract sum for duly
performed contract for an equipment being used on the
vehicle of the Chairman and Secretary of the
Commission, for which a judicial intervention was
sought before 1st defendant eventually paid;
(iii) And other matters that resulted in hardship and financial

downturn of the Plaintiff Company and obligations to its
staff as a result of the Defendants willful act(s).
d. After stating my grouse with the 1st Defendant/Respondent,

particularly its erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu, as
partly narrated above, Senator Emmanuel Azu Agboti
advised that I put them in writing as my submission to the
Public Hearing on INEC i.e. the 1st Defendant/Respondent,
which he felt was the appropriate forum to ventilate my
grievances.
94.That as a follow-up to the above, a letter dated 22nd May, 2007,

issued by the AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON INEC ON THE
DISBURSEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDS
ALLOCATED TO INEC BY NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR
THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING THE APRIL, 2007
GENERAL ELECTIONS BY THE SENATE OF THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA invited/summoned me in
person to a Public Hearing to give evidence on the subject matter as
it relates to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented products/Concepts used
WITHOUT our written consent, approval and authority first sought
and obtained being the bona-fide owner of the Patents & Copyright
Designs, which I gave evidence creditably to the best of my ability.
The Certified True Copies of the letter from THE SENATE of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria inviting me in person to the
Public Hearing dated 22nd May, 2007, The Vanguard Newspaper
NASS publication inviting specific Corporate bodies (amongst
whom were Emchai Ltd. and Trenko International Ltd. who
were at the centre of the Ballot Boxes issue and the procurement
of Direct Data Capture Machines project for the Voter’s
Registration exercise respectively that generated all these suits,
imbroglio and the inquest by the National Assembly), individuals
and 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Chairman & Commissioners
dated Wednesday, 23rd May, 2007; my written submission
79
thereto; the letter from THE SENATE of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria inviting the former Chairman of the 1 st Defendant,
late Dr. Abel Guobadia along with his former Commissioners to
the Public Hearing dated 22nd May, 2007; an encompassing
presentation and submission to Senate Public Hearing by the
erstwhile Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, late Dr.
Abel Guobadia detailing a list of major projects undertaken
during his tenure, which are contrary and puts to credibility
question(s) to the budget appropriations requests made by the 1 st
Defendant under the leadership of erstwhile Chairman, Prof.
Maurice Iwu vis-à-vis subsequent budgetary
appropriations/allocations that are unfortunately within the
scope of the maladministration of expenditure, double budgeting
and misappropriation of allocated Funds for the 2007 elections
that the Senate President, Ken Nnamani mentioned at my
meeting with him referred to at paragraph 93 above and related
Newspaper publications, to wit: Vanguard Newspaper of Friday,
25th of May, 2007, This Day Newspaper of Tuesday, 22nd August,
2006, This Day Newspaper of Wednesday 23rd August 2006,
National Mirror Newspaper of Tuesday, 26 th June, 2007 and The
New Nigerian of Sunday, 1st July, 2007, are hereto attached and
marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 41 to 41J”.
95.That as an attestation of the supposed allegation of budget

duplication, et el that persisted towards the 2007 General elections
especially under the leadership of erstwhile Chairman of the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent, Prof. Maurice Iwu and afterwards, such
practice as it pertains particularly to the Patented Products/Concepts
of the Plaintiff/Applicant and other electoral materials/equipment, is
replete in a plethora of documents, including but not limited to the 1st
Defendant/Respondent’s NASS 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and
2019 budget appropriations, (with particular reference to pages
569, 587, 1893, 633, 635/636, 874, 875, 876 & 877 with
classification Nos. 230050101, 054060020100000,
054060020110000, 054060020130000, 054060020140000,
054060020160000, 054060020320000, 054000002501099,
054000002501099, 054060020300000, 054000010010000,
054000020070000 and 054000020020000 respectively) upon which
financial details of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s licensing/royalty fees
that have to do with its Patented Products/Concept can be
extrapolated without any iota of conjecture and of course various
Newspaper publications in support of such allegations. The
Certified True Copies of the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s NASS
80
2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2019 budget appropriations,
The Nation Newspaper of Sunday, 21 st February, 2010, The
Leadership Newspaper of Sunday, 21st of February, 2010, This
Day Newspaper of Monday, 22nd February, 2010 and The Nation
Newspaper of Wednesday, 11th August, 2010 are hereto attached
and marked as “EXHIBITS 41K to 41T”.
96.That the 1st Defendant/Respondent adequately tooled up in year 2002

under the erstwhile Chairman, Late Dr. Abel Guobadia, under
whom a technological dimension to electioneering was first
introduced in his tenure, for the 2003 General elections with regards
to equipping for a world class Voters’ Registration in Nigeria. This
project was championed and given to a Nigerian company by the
name, Messrs. Image Technologies Ltd. led by a Mr. Yinka
Fisher in collaboration with a South African Group, led by one Prof.
Mandla Mchunu, a former Chairman of the South African electoral
body, at a humongous cost of over ₦7.5Billion (Seven Billion, Five
Hundred Million Naira Only) in year 2002 for the 2003 General
elections. All the project would have ever needed is an enhancement
or upgrade with a fraction of the project sum, however subsequent
leadership of the 1st Defendant/Respondent from the tenure of
erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu, from year 2005 to 2019
purportedly went on a shopping spree as evidenced in the paragraphs
95 and 96 above.
97.That lots are left to be said of duplicated and multiple projects such
as VISAT, HF, VHF, etc which were hitherto invested on by the
previous administrations before that of Prof. Maurice Iwu, the
erstwhile Chairman of the 1st Defendant.
98.That in a calculated and resolved bid to frustrate and intimidate

the Group Executive Chairman/CEO of the Plaintiff/Applicant, an
attempt to use the instrumentality of the Police High Command to
suppress permanently and continuously steal the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Intellectual Property Rights and deprive it of
enjoying the benefits of its patented rights over the boxes and its
other Patented Product/Concepts, the erstwhile Chairman of the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent, Prof. Maurice Iwu, wrote a petition dated
19th February, 2009 to the Inspector–General of Police, titled and
alleging: BLACKMAIL AND SUSTAINED CAMPAIGN OF
CALUMNY AGAINST INDEPENDENT NATION
ELECTORAL COMMISION (INEC) BY BEDDING
81
HOLDINGS. A copy of the petition written by Prof. Iwu to the
IGP is hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 42”.
99.That based on the said petition, I was arrested by the police

whereupon I made multiple statements to the police under caution
and tendered various documentary evidence to establish the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented rights over its products which was
the basis upon which the petition was written against the Chairman
of the Plaintiff/Applicant by the erstwhile Chairman of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent, Prof. Maurice Iwu. The Certified True
Copies of my hand written statement/a typed version (provided
for ease of reading clarity) given to the police in response to Prof.
Iwu’s petition are hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS
SOO 43 to 43A”.
100.That after a thorough and comprehensive investigation into the

allegation of calumny against the 1st Plaintiff/Applicant as alleged by
Prof. Iwu in the said petition, the police finally came out with a
detailed report dated 12th of July, 2010, wherein they categorically
stated, inter alia, at paragraph 5 thereof, that: “From the
foregoing, it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner in this case
has not been substantiated by current evidence. The case is
therefore frivolous and of no effect in its entirety”.
UNDERLINING FOR EMPHASIS. The outcome of the police
investigation was also published in THE NATION Newspapers of
Thursday, August 5th, 2010 at page 3 thereof. A copy of the said
report and THE NATION Newspaper publication of Thursday,
August 5th, 2010 at page 3 thereof are hereto respectively
attached and marked as “EXHIBIT SOO 44 AND 44A”.
101.That my submission at THE SENATE Public Hearing mentioned

in paragraphs 93 and 94 above indeed generated a huge level of
animosity against my person and the Plaintiff/Applicant from the
highest authority of the 1st Defendant/Respondent and especially its
erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu to the extent that I became
a target and a personae-non-grata to the offices of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent and especially the office of its erstwhile
Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu.
102.That this animosity against me and the Plaintiff/Applicant by the 1 st

Defendant/Respondent and its erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Maurice
Iwu was openly demonstrated by its refusal to pay for a fully
executed contract by the Plaintiff/Applicant sister company (Quick
82
Transfer Services Ltd) until the company sought for judicial
intervention through an action by a Writ of Summons dated 1st
June, 2007 in the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Holden at
Abuja in Suit No. CV/931/07. The Judgment in this above case was
enforced through a Writ of Fifa dated 7th August, 2009, wherein the
Court’s Bailiffs impounded six (6) vehicles belonging to the 1st
Defendant/Respondent. The Certified True Copies of the Writ of
Summons dated 1st June, 2007, the Judgment of the High Court
of the Federal Capital territory dated 26 th June, 2009, the
inventory and the Notice of Sale of the impounded vehicles
arising from the Writ of Fifa dated 7th August 2009, one of our
solicitors several letters requesting the redemption of the debt
dated 24th September, 2009 and various Newspapers publications
relevant to the case, all dated Monday, 3rd August, 2009 are
hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 45 to 45H.
103.That in spite of all the letters written by the Plaintiff/Applicant

referred to in paragraph 92 (L) which are attached as “EXHIBITS
40H to 40K” above, the addressees of the said letters, who are
relevant authorities and statutory anti-corruption agencies, failed to
carry out their statutory duties/functions in investigating the weighty
allegations contained therein, even where these allegations were
supported by overwhelming documentary evidence.
104.Consequently, by four (4) separate letters, all dated 27th of August,

2012 respectively,the Plaintiff/Applicant reminded the addressees
of their statutory functions/obligations to investigate the alleged
infractions; giving them seven (7) days within which they should
carry out their said investigations. The four (4) copies of the
separate letters, all dated 27th of August, 2012 written by the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Solicitor are hereto attached and marked
“EXHIBITS SOO 45I to 45L”.
105.That despite the odds, the Plaintiff/Applicant continued to pursue

its legitimate patented rights in and over the Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Boxes and its other Patented
Products/Concepts by continuously giving notice of expression of
interest and bringing to fore the 1 st Defendant/Respondent
obligations and responsibilities to us, as the bona-fide owners of
its various Patented Products/Concepts that were being infringed
upon by the Defendants/Respondents, especially the 1st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents and its agents. A copy of such letter
83
dated 7th of September, 2010 is hereto attached and marked as
106.That in pursuit of our rights in and over our aforesaid Patented

Products/Concepts, we first instituted legal action against the
Defendants/Respondents in 2007, and several related matters have
been heard by this Honourable Court, which had cost the
Plaintiff/Applicant substantial cost running into millions of Naira as
legal fees and other sundry expenses including cost of frivolous
appeals hung at the Court of Appeal for the past five (5) and six (6)
years respectively by the Defendants/Respondents, especially the 1 st
107.That the said Defendants/Respondents, especially the 1st & 2nd

Defendants/Respondents, have again used the patented products of
the Plaintiff/Applicant in the recently conducted Bayelsa and Kogi
States Governorship elections held on Saturday, 16th of
November, 2019. The Defendants/Respondents have also perfected
plans to use the said patented products in other future elections as
referred to in paragraph 21 above as evidenced in “EXHIBIT
SOO 4” attached, the processes of which has already started and
against which we have written by our letter dated 27th of August,
2019 for which we forewarned the Defendants/Respondents of the
futility of doing as it is contrary to law and order. The receipt of the
letter was duly acknowledged same day admonishing the 1 st
Defendant Respondent, to retrospectively regularize their
continuous and multiple breaches in the use of our patented
products and Concepts over the years and before again deploying
them for the recently held Gubernatorial elections for Kogi and
Bayelsa States, held on Saturday, the 16th of November, 2019. A
copy of the said letter is hereto attached and marked as
108.That in year 1990, the Plaintiff/Applicant successfully installed

nationwide for the 1st Defendant, National Electoral Commission
(NEC), as they were then named, a first of its kind modern High
frequency robust HF Telex Over Radio System for the
transmission of election results called ‘Ceptron Equipment’,
which were acclaimed to have facilitated and eased the statutory
function of the 1st Defendant. It is on record that the said equipment
was in use from year 1990 to year 2002, approximately twelve
(12) years without any hitches and/or complains except for the
maintenance contract agreement that was to take effect after the
84
twelve months warranty period as inputted in the supply contract
agreement that was not implemented due to the interest of the then
Secretary of INEC,AlhajiAliyu Umar, who had interest in another
firm and the 1st Defendant/Respondent indeed awarded the
maintenance contract, ignoring the condition precedent relating to
the maintenance contract agreement as provided in the supply
contract abinito.
109.That the Plaintiff avers that sometime in 1991 after a protracted

effort to settle amicably the contractual obligation arising from a
satisfactory completion of a nationwide installation of the
‘Ceptron’ HF Communication Equipment contract mentioned in
paragraph 108 above, which was then used for the general
elections, broke down; it was compelled to sue the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent for the breach of the maintenance contract
agreement thereof which condition precedent of the said
maintenance contract was stipulated in the contract letter/agreement
and was awarded the sum of ₦19,702,000.00 (Nineteen million,
Seven hundred and Two Thousand Naira) damages by the Lagos
High Court in 1994, which judgment debt was eventually paid by
the 1st Defendant. Copies of the two (2) contract Award Letters
that led to the said litigation and the Certified True Copies of
the Judgment of Lagos High Court dated Friday, 11 th March,
1994 are herewith attached and marked as “EXHIBITS 48 to
48B”.
110.That in the 1st Defendants commitment to install a more modern

High Frequency and a technologically advanced computer based
HF Radio System to replace the ‘Ceptron’ equipment the
Plaintiff/Applicant installed in year 1990, which were hitherto in
use, but were no longer functioning effectively in most states and
headquarters (due to the fact that the recommendation of the
maintenance of the equipment was not adhered to); it advertised in
the National Newspapers for a prequalification exercise and
twenty-six (26) companies indicated interest and sent in their
proposals. One of the companies that bidded and got the highly
competitive contract because of its track record and affiliation with
Plaintiff/Applicant is its sister company – AD-ALLOY
PRECISION MAN’F LTD. of which I am also superintending as
the CEO. We successfully supplied and installed newworld-class
equipment named ‘CODAN’ nationwide for the 2003 General
elections. This same contract had stipulated in it a Service
Agreement which was not followed through or honoured.
85
Nothwithsanding, the Defendant/Respondent in 2006 again went
ahead and obtained a budget provision of N169,000,000.00 (One
Hundred and Sixty-Nine Million Naira) as per Classification
No. 054060020160000 of “EXHIBIT 41J” to provide new HF
equipment just barely after four (4) years of a highly robust
equipment that gulped over N171,000,000.00 for supply only, used
for the 2003 elections that were obviously still in service.A copy of
the letter of award to our sister company AD-ALLOY
PRECISION MAN’F LTD for the supply and installation of
‘CODAN’ HF Radio System dated 7th of June, 2002 is hereto
attached and marked “EXHIBIT SOO 49”.
111. That the Plaintiff avers further that the scenario that led to the
litigation mentioned in paragraph 108 above, which the Lagos
State High Court awarded damages of over ₦19m in favour of
the Plaintiff/Applicant is similar to the details enumerated in
paragraphs 108 and 109 above, which had to do with a stipulated
maintenance contract that was already an integral part of the supply
contract but was unfulfilled due to the penchant of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent for disregarding the sanctity of contracts
and terms of agreement coupled with its representatives in many
cases to carefully or diligently scrutinize agreements signed
knowing the consequences will affect past and future generations
and the apparent animosity of the erstwhile Chairman of the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent, Prof. Maurice Iwu, who was running the
establishment like his personal business and was God unto himself.
112.It is pertinent to state categorically that the instant case is totally

different in all material facts from that of Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/1537/2018 earlier considered by this Honourable
Court. The instant case is ostensibly challenging the continuous
unauthorized use of the patented products/Concepts of the
Plaintiff/Applicant after the aforementioned Judgments/Orders of
Suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010
delivered on 5th Day of June, 2012 and 28 th Day of January, 2014
respectively, notwithstanding the hung appeals mentioned in
paragraph 106 above and the recently concluded Gubernatorial
elections for Bayelsa and Kogi States held on the 16th November,
2019 respectively. A copy of THE NATION Newspaper of
Sunday,November 17, 2019 by which the conduct of the said
election was published is hereto attached and marked as
EXHIBIT 49A.
86
113.Further, it is also pertinent to state that all efforts by the
Plaintiff/Applicant to settle this matter out of court with a view to
having a political and/or administrative solution and the
intervention of the Hon. Minister of Justice could not make a
headway till date due to the unwillingness of the 1 st
Defendant/Respondent to accede to amicable settlement. Copies of
our solicitors letters dated 25th November, 2010 addressed to the
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, our solicitors
letter dated 18th February, 2014 addressed to National Security
Adviser to the President, our solicitors letter to the Senate
President dated 18th February, 2014 with other attached
acknowledged front copies of our solicitors previous letters on
same matter all dated 4th October, 2010 to the Senate President,
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Chairman, Senate
Committee on Public Petition, Chairman, Senate committee on
INEC, Speaker, House of Representatives, Chairman, House
Committee on INEC and the full acknowledgement of senators’
list are hereto attached and marked as “EXHIBITS SOO 50 to
50B”.
114.That in furtherance to our various letters mentioned in paragraph

113 above, the office of the President of the Senate responded by
letter dated 18th October 2010 and followed up by scheduling
meetings with the relevant committees of the NASS. Despite the
several letters and entreaties made as mentioned above, both
personal and official intervention to find a common ground to
resolving the imbroglio by highly placed citizens both in private
and official capacity, the erstwhile Chairman, Prof. Attahiru
Mohammed Jega, who was then on the saddle of leadership of the
1st Defendant/Respondent, obstinately refused, sustained the
fraudulent and unwholesome acts of his predecessor-in-office, Prof.
Maurice Iwu, which concomitant effect amounted to a further
economic sabotage of the highest order by the official actions
and/or inactions that were taken thereafter in the light of the
revelations and what subsequently transpired as stated above. In
fact at the intervention of well meaning Nigerians, including but
not limited to the Chairman, House Committee on Electoral
matters who intervened, it was relayed to us that Prof. Attahiru
Mohammed Jega said that the whole thing is fraudulent and
unacceptable and as such he would not accede to the overtures
and/or request despite the overwhelming documentary evidence put
before him and his Commissioners; thatinstead of having any
dealing with the Plaintiff/Applicant, he would rather resign.
87
This is characteristic of the same blackmail manner in whichProf.
Jega forced budget appropriation(s) out of the authorities,
‘threatening to resign’ if his financial requests were not acceded to
even for projects that smack double budgeting and for projects that
are already in place. A copy of the Senate President’s response to
our various solicitors’ letters is hereto attached and marked
“EXHIBIT SOO 50C”.
115.By a letter dated 22nd October, 2019, the Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote
the 1st Defendant/Respondent requesting for the yearly breakdown
of Budget Expenditure Items from 2005 till date. A copy of the
Plaintiff’s solicitor’s letter dated 22nd October, 2019 is hereto
attached and marked as ‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 51’’.
116.In response to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s said letter, the 1 st

Defendant/Respondent wrote a letter dated 3rd December, 2019 by
which the 1st Defendant conveyed a sketchy Budget Summary
from year 2005 to 2019; being a far cry from the requested Budget
Expenditure Items comprehensively itemized and received by the
Plaintiff/Applicant from the National Assembly/National Library as
already exhibited above. A copy of the 1st
Defendant/Respondent’s letter dated 3rd December, 2019
together with the attached sketchy Budget Summary from 2005
to 2019 are hereto collectively attached and marked as
‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 52’’.
117.In spite of the fact that the Defendants are very much aware of the
valid and subsisting judgments of court to the effect that the
Plaintiff/Applicant has the exclusive patented rights over the
Patents and Designs in respect of the TBB, ECTBB and PASS, the
Defendants/Respondents (particularly the 1st Defendant) continue to
use the Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented products for the conduct of
twenty-eight (28) outstanding court-ordered bye-elections held on
25th Janaury, 2020 without first seeking and obtaining the prior
consent and authorization of the Plaintiff/Applicant to that effect. A
Certified True Copy of THE NATION Newspaper of
Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at pages 1 and 7 thereof by which
the conduct of the said election was published is hereto attached
and marked as ‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 53’’.
118.Yet undone, the Defendants/Respondents (particularly the 1st

Defendant) are presently planning and making preparations to
further use the Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented products for the
88
conduct of general elections in Edo and Ondo States on 25th
Janaury, 2020 in defiance of the valid and subsisting judgments of
court and without first seeking and obtaining the prior consent and
authorization of the Plaintiff/Applicant to that effect. A Certified
True Copy of THE NATION Newspaper of Friday, February 7,
2020 at pages 1 and 43 thereof by which the proposed conduct
of the said elections in Edo and Ondo States on 10 th October,
2020 was published is hereto attached and marked as
‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 54’’.
119.That the Plaintiff/Applicant has continued to suffer great financial

losses and hardship due to the continuous acts of the Respondents,
especially the 1st Defendant/Respondent, in deliberately refusing to
pay the royalties accruable to the Applicant for the patented
materials used for conducting past General Elections and other
elections from year 2003 till date despite the fact that there were
appropriations for every election cycle for each of the patented
materials illegally used.
120.The consequence of this is that the Plaintiff/Applicant was unable to

pay her warehouse accommodation rent and meet her other
financial obligations. A Copy of the letter dated 09/09/2010 and
titled: RE: RENT DUE ON THE WAREHOUSE SPACE AT
JINI CLOSE, OFF ACME ROAD, OGBA INDUSTRIAL
ESATTE, IKEJA by which the Plaintiff/Applicant was
requested to pay-off her arrears of rents for two (2) years
running is hereto attached and marked as ‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 55’’
121. Also, the Plaintiff/Applicant was unable to pay the salaries of her
employees and also unable to service/liquidate the loans amongst
other similar matters which the Plaintiff/Applicant was forced by this
hardship to obtain from the banks in struggling to sustain the
management of the Plaintiff/Applicant. A Copy of the letter dated
16th March, 2011 addressed to the Plaintiff/Applicant and titled:
RE: INDEBTEDNESS OF BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED
TO FORTUNE INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC by which the
Plaintiff/Applicant was requested to off-set her loan facility in
the sum of ₦19, 887, 090.040 (Nineteen Million, Eight Hundred
and Eighty-Seven Thousand, Ninety Naira and Forty Kobo
Only) is hereto attached and marked as ‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 56’’
122.That I believe that we have a justifiable cause of action against the

Defendants/Respondents, especially the 1st Defendant/Respondent.
89
123.I hereby give NOTICE to the Defendants/Respondents (especially
the 1st Defendant/Respondent) to produce the yearly itemized
breakdown of Budget Expenditure for years 2008, 2011, 2012,
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020 as the
Plaintiff/Applicant shall rely on them in proof of its case at the
hearing of this suit.
124. That it will be in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to
grant all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant in this case.
125. That we have made a full disclosure of all material facts relevant to
this application and matter.
126. That I, CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE,

NPOM, FSM make this solemn declaration conscientiously
believing same to be true, correct and in accordance with the Oaths
Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
………………………………...
DEPONENT
SWORN at the Federal High Court Registry,

Abuja, this……..day of February, 2020.
BEFORE ME
COMMISSIONER FOR OATH

90
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
BETWEEN
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED………...……..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
AND

COMMISSION (INEC)

..DEFENDANTS/

MINISTER OF JUSTICE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN

ARGUING THE ORIGINATING MOTION.
1.0 INTRODUCTION/FACTS:
1.1 This Written Address is in support of the Applicant’s Originating

Motion brought pursuant to Sections 43, 44 (1) (a) & (b), of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended);
Sections 1 (b) & 3 (3) (a) & (b), 6 (1) (a&b) & 2, 10 1&2 (a),19 (1)
(a), (b) & (c) and Sections 25, (1), (2), (3) (a) & (b), of the Patent and
Designs Act, Cap. P12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004;
Order 44 Of The Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2019 and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
1.2 By this application, the Plaintiff/Applicant is praying this
Honourable Court for thirty-five (35) reliefs as already enumerated
copiously on the face of the Originating Motion.
1.3 The said Originating Motion is predicated on Seventeen (17) solid
grounds as can be gleaned from the said Originating Motion.
1.4 There is also an affidavit of One Hundred and Twenty-Six (126)
paragraphs in support of this application. The said affidavit is duly
deposed to by Chief (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE,
NPOM, FSM, who is the Group Executive Chairman/CEO of the
91
Plaintiff/Applicant herein.
1.5 Attached to the said affidavit of the said Chief (DR.) SYLVESTER
OSADOLO ODIGIE, NPOM, FSM, are EXHIBITS SOO 1 – SOO 56
respectively.
1.6 My Lord, we humbly rely and adopt all the grounds upon which the
Originating Motion is predicated, all the paragraphs of the Affidavit
in support of the Originating Motion and all the Exhibits attached
thereto in arguing this Originating Motion and urging your Lordship
to grant all the reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant herein.
2.0 ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:
Whether the continuous use of the Applicant’s patented

products, concepts and designs by the Respondents, without the
Applicant’s prior written and express license, consent,
authorization and/or approval is not a willful disobedience of the
valid and subsisting Judgments and Orders of this Honourable
Court forbidding the acts of the 1 st Respondent and rendering its
conducts illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional; and if the issue
distilled above is answered in the affirmative, whether the
Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
3.0 LEGAL ARGUMENT:
3.1. My Lord, it is our most respectful submission that the continuous

willful disobedience to the Judgment and Order of this Honourable
Court by the Respondents, most particularly the 1st Respondent in
using the Plaintiff’s patented materials without the prior written and
express license, consent, authorization of the Plaintiff/Applicant is
unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful.
3.2. We submit that the judgments and orders of Courts form the bedrock
of any adjudicatory system. Where judgments and orders of Courts
are treated with disdainful contempt and willful disobedience, such
portends grave danger to the survival of the judiciary and the legal
system at large. Indeed, an order or judgment of Court whether valid
or not must be obeyed until set aside.
3.3. It is on this premise that we further submit that for all intents and
purposes the Judgments and Orders of a Court of competent
jurisdiction (such as this Honourable Court) remain valid and in
force for all intents and purposes until they are vacated or set aside.
On the binding effects of judgments and orders of Courts which
92
remain valid and in force until they are vacated or set aside, we refer
this Honourable Court to the celebrated case of KANU & ANOR. V.
OBETA & ANOR. (2015) LPELR-24432 (CA) where the Court of
Appeal held emphatically as follows:
“Court Orders or Judgments are not permitted to be

treated with arrogance and levity the way the Respondents
have done in this case. The Order or Judgment of a Court
of competent jurisdiction subsists unless and until it is set
aside and this of course is axiomatic. While it subsists, a
person will be treading perilous path who decides to
arrogate to himself the right to ignore a valid and positive
Order of Court. It makes no difference that ex facie it
appears that the Court that made the Order is without
jurisdiction. To therefore disobey an order of Court under
the misguided belief that the said Order is null for any
reason whatsoever even if it subsequently turns out to be
so in the end would be to activate legal danger with the
unpleasant consequences that this may subsequently
attract. The reason of course, is that until the said Order is
finally determined to be null and void by another Court’s
Order, the Order subsists.
3.4. On the need for parties to be obedient to court orders and the effect
of disobedience of a party to a judgment or court orders, Denton-
West JCA, in the case of BALONWU V. OBI (2002) 5 NWLR
(PT. 1028) C.A. PAGE 488 AT PAGE 588 thereof, held thus:
“An order of court whether valid or not must be obeyed

until it is set aside. An order of court must be obeyed as
long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or highly
placed in society. An act of disobedience towards an order
of court can render any further act by those who have
acted disobediently to sanctions from other courts because
no court would want its orders flouted. This is what the
rule of law is all about hence the courts have always
stressed the need for obedience of court orders. In the
instant case, the appellants, instead of obeying the order of
court of a competent jurisdiction, went ahead with the
process of removal of the 1st respondent from office. Their
failure to obey the mandatory order of Amaechi, J.
rendered the removal process invalid. See Onwudu v.
Mokwe (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 585) 146; Ekiti State v.
93
Daramola (2003) 10 NWLR (PT. 827) 104; Governor of
Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621.”
3.5 Also, on the binding effect of judgments and orders of court until
they are set aside, in the case of IDRIS V. A.N.P.P. (2008) 7
NWLR (PT. 1088) PAGE 1 AT PAGE 122, PARAS. D-F the
Court of Appeal, Per Odili JCA (now JSC) also held thus:
‘‘An order made by a Court remains valid and in force for

all intents and purposes until it is vacated or set aside on
appeal. In the instant case, the tribunal was right when it
held that the order of injunction made by the High Court
of Kogi State restraining INEC from barring the 1st
Respondent and the 2nd Petitioner from contesting the
election held on 14/4/07 was binding on INEC until
vacated, or set aside on appeal. U.T.B. v. Koleoso (2006) 18
NWLR (Pt. 1010)1; Ndigwe v. Nwude (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.
626) 314; In Re: Diamond Bank Ltd. (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt.
796) 170; Ijebuode Local Government v. Adedeji Balogun Co.
Ltd. (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 136; UBA v. Onagoruwa
(1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 439) 709; Komolafe v. Omole (1993) 1
NWLR (Pt. 268) 213’’ Per Omokri JCA, Per Peter Odili
JCA ‘‘Having regard to the foregoing, it appears that the
problem in this matter was perpetrated by INEC. If it had
simply obeyed the order of injunction made by the Kogi
State High Court restraining it from disqualifying the 1 st
Respondent and 2nd Petitioner from contesting the
conducted election on 14/4/2007, there would have been no
problem now. INEC is not above the law. In fact, its
disobedience and arrogance is now the misfortune of the 1 st
Appellant, Ibrahim Idris, who in the present circumstance
is a victim.’’ Per Omokri, JCA ‘‘The INEC lacked the
authority to decide that the High Court of Kogi State
either lacked jurisdiction to give the order or to interpret
to all and sundry that the order had self-destroyed the
effluxion of time. Such a brazen attitude if allowed or
encouraged would lead to a chaotic and an anarchy
infested society. Fortunately, our jusdiciary system has no
patience or indulgence for such. I rely on Komolafe v.
Omole (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 268) 213 at 227.’’
3.6 Similarly, in the case of SHUGABA V. UNION BANK OF

NIGERIA PLC (1999) 11 NWLR (PT.627) 459 the Supreme
94
Court, Per Wali, (JSC), as he then was, emphasized the need to obey
an order of court as follows:
“In regard to the disobedience of Court order, it is the law

that a person who is in contempt of a subsisting court
order is not entitled to be granted court’s discretion to
enable him continue with the breach. Lawal Osula v. Lawal
Osula (1995) 3 NWLR (PT.382) at 143; First African Trust
Bank Ltd & Anor. v. Basil O. Ezegbu & Anor. (1992) 9
NWLR (PT.264) 132. In the case of Mobil Oil Nig. Ltd v.
Assan (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.412) 129 at 143 the Supreme
Court said “It is the plain and unqualified obligation of
every person against or in respect of whom an order is
made by a Court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless
and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising
nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends
even to cases where the person affected by an order
believes it to be irregular or even void. A Party who knows
of an order irregular cannot be permitted to disobey it. See
Ezekiel Hart v. Ezekiel Hart (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 276;
Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18)
621 at 637; Odogwo v. Odogwo (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 225)
539 at 556; Nigerian Army v. Mowarbi (1992) 4 NWLR
(Pt. 235) 345 at 352”.
3.7 We submit my Lord, that the attitude and conduct of the

Defendants/Respondents, most especially the 1st and 2nd
Defendants/Respondents in disobeying the judgment and orders of
this Honourable Court was not borne out of ignorance as both the 1 st,
2nd and 4th Defendants/Respondents were duly served vide the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s letter dated 12th February, 2014. We
respectfully refer this Honourable Court to EXHIBITS ‘‘34A AND
34B’’.
3.8 Indeed, the the 1stDefendant/Respondent applied to the

Plaintiff/Applicant for license for the acquisition of more Ballot
Boxes for the conduct of the 2003 general elections and the
Applicant, after series of negotiations, appeals and in the interest of
the nation, graciously granted them the license for the period 29th
January, 2003 – 29th March, 2003 only. This is reflected in
paragraph 36(g)i of the affidavit in supprt of this Originating
Motion. We also refer this Honourable Court to the Licensing
95
Agreement and the License of Right to that effect, which are
EXHIBITS ‘‘10, 10A & 10B’’ respectively.
3.9 In furtherance of the above, the 1st Defendant/Respondent in issuing

award letters to his agents and contractors with respect to
Transparent Ballot Boxes included the clause informing them of the
Applicant’s right to the patent as reflected in paragraph 4 of
EXHIBITS ‘‘12B – 12G’’ respectively. We respectfully refer this
Honourable Court to EXHIBIT ‘‘12B’’ which reads:
“Please be informed that the product (Transparent Ballot

Boxes) is covered by patent and the Commission has secured
the approval of the patent holder to grant you license to
manufacture/import the product”.
3.10 It is instructive to note that EXHIBIT “12B” was signed by the

secretary to the 1st Defendant/Respondent at that time. Similarly,
EXHIBIT “12B – 12G” contained the same restriction.
3.11 My Lord, since that time, the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents
failed, neglected, omitted and/or refused to apply for any license for
the continuous use of any of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented
materials again in all elections conducted from March, 2003 to date
and they have also failed, neglected, omitted and/or refused to pay to
the Plaintiff/Applicant any royalty for the use of all the patented
materials. Instead, they have continued to use it with impunity in
various elections at the state and national levels.
3.12 This Honourable Court on the 5th day of June, 2012 in Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 delivered its judgment nullifying all the
competing Patents and Design Rights mentioned in paragraphs 69 -
72 of the supporting affidavit, issued by the 3 rd
Defendant/Respondent and granted all the Plaintiff/Applicant’s
reliefs as prayed and also gave a PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
restraining the Defendants/Respondents, any other person or persons
whosoever from otherwise dealing with the said patented products of
the Plaintiff/Applicant EXCEPT with the express and prior written
consent, license and authority of the Plaintiff/Applicant to that effect.
We rely on “EXHIBITS SOO 27 to 27A”, which are the Certified
True Copies of the Enrolled Orders of this Honourable Court and the
full script of the Judgment respectively.
3.13 On the 28th day of January, 2014, this Honourable Court also
delivered a judgment in Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 between
96
BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. vs. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 5 Ors. compelling the
Respondents herein to, among other orders, obtain from the
Plaintiff/Applicant, written license, consent and authority forthwith,
for the production, supply, acquisition, importation, procurement,
purchase, receipt, sale, of the products covered by the Patent and
Design Rights of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s, being the bona-fide
patentee of the Patent and Design Rights. We rely on EXHIBITS
SOO 28 to 28A, which are the Certified True Copies of the Enrolled
Orders of this Honourable Court and the full script of the Judgment
respectively.
3.14 It is equally on record that all Administrative options open to the

Plaintiff/Applicant to resolve this matter amicably have been
exhausted, including our petition/letter to the Honourable Attorney-
General of the Federation& Minister of Justice, Federal Ministry
of Justice (FMOJ) for his intervention in resolving this matter. We
rely on“EXHIBIT SOO 29” which is a Copy of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s said Petition/Letter dated 10th October, 2016.
3.15 Based on the aforesaid petition/letter referred to in paragraph 75 of

the affidavit in support of this application, as “EXHIBIT SOO 29”,
The 4thDefendant/Respondent, in year 2017, directed the then
Solicitor General/Permanent Secretary of the (FMOJ) to send
letters of invitation to the Plaintiff/Applicant and the 1 st & 2nd
Defendants/Respondents with a view to settling this matter amicably.
Subsequently, after several failed attempts to an agreeable date for
the meeting, it was finally slated for the 17th day of May, 2017 and
held on the same date with an all inclusive fifteen (15) persons made
up of top management staff and representatives of (FMOJ) in
attendance; which meeting was led and chaired by Mr. Taiwo
Abidogun, Esq. the Solicitor General of the
Federation/Permanent Secretary (SGF/PS) of (FMOJ), as he then
was, (for and on behalf of the 4th Defendant/Respondent), the
representatives of the 1st Defendant/Respondent led by its Director
of Legal Services (DLS), Mrs Oluwatoyin Babalola and
representatives of the Plaintiff/Applicant led by its lead legal
representative, Chief Assam Assam (SAN). We respectfully refer
this Honourable Court to “EXHIBITS SOO 29A to 29E, which are
copies of the aforesaid HAGF letters for the meetings of 29th of
March 2017, 12th of April 2017, 2nd of May 2017, 11th of May 2017
and minutes of the mediation meeting held on the 17th day of May,
2017 respectively.
97
3.16 Arising from the detailed minutes of the aforesaid (SGF/PS)
mediation meeting referred to in paragraph 76 of the affidavit and
attached as “EXHIBIT SOO 29E”, are the highpoint excerpts of
the mediation minutes of the office of the 4 th Defendant/Respondent
being the observations of the Chairman of the meeting as hereunder
partly paraphrased for ease of reference:
PARTICULARS OF HIGHPOINT EXCERPTS OF THE (SGF/PS)

MEDIATION MEETING OF 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2017
S/NO. DELIBERATION ACTION

BY
1. OPENING
91. The SGF/PS affirmed that INEC is still an SGF/PS

92. appendage of the Executive and asked whether
93. INEC was aware that any action or inaction
94. attributable to INEC eventually becomes a burden
95. of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
96. The SGF/PS stated further that no law prohibits SGF/PS
97. exploratory discussions around decisions of court
98. aimed at an outcome that will assuage all parties
99. in national interest.
113. The SGF/PS concluded that there is urgent need SGF/PS

114. for INEC to reappraise its legal position in order
115. to avoid a situation where the hardened position
116. taken becomes detrimental to national interest; …
e.t.c
3.17 Even after the two (2) Judgments/Orders of this Honourable Court
delivered in Suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and
th
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on the 5 Day of June, 2012 and
the 28th Day of January, 2014 respectively, the 1st
Defendant/Respondent went ahead to use the Transparent Ballot
Boxes (TBB) and Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot
Boxes (ECTBB) with its integral implements of Electronic Card
98
Reader (ECR), also known and called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or
Optical Card Reader (OCR) in conducting the Gubernatorial election
in Anambra, Ekiti and Osun States in 2014; the 2015 General
elections; the 2018 Gubernatorial elections held in Anambra, Ekiti
and Osun States respectively, without the written consent and
approval of the Plaintiff/Applicant first sought and obtained in total
disregard to the Orders of this Honourable Court forbidding them
from doing so. We refer to “EXHIBITS SOO 30 to 30E which are
the Certified True Copies of the Newspaper publications of these
elections published in The Nation of Sunday 22 nd June, 2014,
Sunday Newswatch of Sunday 10th August, 2014; The Guardian
of Sunday, 10th August, 2014; The Nation of Sunday, 21st of
February, 2016 and The Nation of Wednesday, 11th May, 2016
and The Nation of Sunday, 23rd September, 2018 respectively.
3.18 We submit that based on the above, it is abundantly clear that the
conduct of the Defendants/Respondents, most especially the 1st
Defendant/Respondent, is one of flagrant disobedient to the rule of
law and a clear demonstration of unbridled contempt against the
Judgments and Orders of this Honourable Court with impunity.
3.19 My Lord, we submit that while the Respondents can continue to

organize and conduct future elections (though to the commercial
detriment and existence of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s entrepreneural
initiatives), this Honourable Court has the power to restrain the
Defendants/Respondents from using all the Plaintiff/Applicant’s
patented materials for the exercise unless with the prior and written
consent, license, authorization and approval of the
Plaintiff/Applicant first sought and obtained by the
Defendants/Respondents to that effect. However, if they omit, fail,
neglect and/or refuse to do so, we respectfully urge your Lordship to
be guided by the provisions of Section 19(1) and (2) of the Patent
and Designs Act, Cap. P2., Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,
2004 which clearly forbids them from using any products/derivatives
similar to those of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
3.20 My Lord, we further submit that the disobedience of the

Respondents, most especially the 1st and 2nd Respondents to abide by
the Judgments and Orders of this Honourable Court is even more
worrisome when their deliberate disobedience is not associated with
lack of funds. Indeed, over the years, adequate budgetary provisions
were made by appropriation and funds were released to
accommodate these payments in each election circle as admitted by
99
the 1st and 2nd Respondents in THE NATION newspaper of 27th
October, 2018 as amply demonstrated in ‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 32’’ at
paragraph 80 of the affidavit in support of the Originating
Motion. Rather than applying the funds, for the purpose intended,
the 1st and 2nd Respondents have continued to apply them with
impunity.
3.21 My Lord, the danger of the Respondents continuing in their

disobedience of the Judgments and Orders of this Honourable Court
is real and of common knowledge to all and sundry as it will
continue unabated unless this Honourable Court takes a decisive
action to tame the tide of their willful and continuous disobedience.
In recent times, while the Judgments and Orders of this Honourable
Court are still subsisting, the 1st and 2nd Respondents organized and
conducted the Gubernatorial Elections in Anambra State on 9th
November, 2017, Ekiti State on 11th July, 2017, Osun State on
22nd September, 2018, Bayelsa and Kogi States on 16th of
November, 2019. Lately, the Defendants/Respondents (especially
the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents), in further disobedience to
the Courts’ Judgments/Orders, used the said patented products for
the conduct of twenty-eight (28) outstanding court-ordered bye-
elections held on 25th Janaury, 2020 without first seeking and
obtaining the prior consent and authorization of the
Plaintiff/Applicant to that effect. We refer this Honourable Court to
‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 53’’, which is the Certified True Copy of THE
NATION Newspaper of Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at pages 1
and 7 thereof by which the conduct of the said election was
published.
3.22 In all these elections, the Defendants/Respondents deployed and used

all the patented materials of the Plaintiff/Applicant, without first
seeking and obtaining the written license, consent and authority of
the Plaintiff/Applicant. This was done by the
Defendants/Respondents in total contempt of the subsisting
Judgments and Orders of this Honourable Court which the
Defendants/Respondents were fully aware of.
3.23 We further submit that this brazen and blatant disregard for the
authority of this Honourable Court cannot find any excuse merely
because the Respondents filed an appeal which, by law, does not
automatically operate as a stay of execution. We submit that this
Honourable Court is not fettered in any way from granting the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s reliefs since no stay of execution has been
100
granted in favour of the Defendants/Respondents. This was the
position of the Supreme Court in the case of AJOMALE V.
YADUAT & ANOR. (1991) 5 NWLR (PT. 191) AT PAGE 266
where the Supreme Court, Per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC stated
emphatically as follows:
‘‘Because a successful litigant is prima facie entitled to the

fruit of the judgment in his favour, it is expressly provided
in section 24 of the Supreme Court Act, 1960 that an
appeal does not operate as a stay of execution. But the
same section leaves it to the discretion of the court to order
a stay either unconditionally or upon such conditions as
the court may deem fit. So, a stay of execution is not
automatic upon filing of an appeal. It can only be ordered
as a matter of judicial discretion which must be exercised
judicially and judiciously. And the discretion can only be
exercised in favour of an applicant who has made out in his
affidavit evidence before the court some special
circumstances for the grant of it.’’ (Underlining supplied for
emphasis.)
3.24 My Lord, we humbly submit that the disobedience of the

Defendants/Respondents, most especially the 1st and 2nd
Defendants/Respondents to abide by the Judgments and Orders of
this Honourable Court is a serious matter. Their disobedience in this
respect is not only unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful, but also
one that has, over the years, subjected the Plaintiff/Applicant to
untold financial hardship to the extent that they can no longer meet
their corporate obligations to their clients and staff; having been
plunged into a state of penury by the Defendants/Respondents. We
respectfully refer this Honourable Court to ‘‘EXHIBITS SOO 55
AND 56’’ respectively. Thus, the Defendants/Respondents must be
compelled to play by the rules.
3.25 The need for the Defendants/Respondents, most especially the 1 st and
2nd Defendants/Respondents to always play by the rules in all matter
relating to the conduct of elections and in following due process in
the award of contract has been stressed by Hon, Justice I. N. Auta,
OFR, CJ, Federal High Court of Nigeria (as he then was) when he
held in his Judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 as follows:
“The business of election is a very serious business, which

affects the interest of the country, as it affects election into
101
the various arms of the government. Therefore, INEC (1 st
Respondent) should always play by the rules, so that its
lack of following due process in awarding contract should
not affect elections to be so conducted. The 1 st and 2nd
Defendants especially INEC were informed of the rights of
the Plaintiff, as per Exhibits 6, 7 and 9 respectively but
went ahead to award the said contract without seeking the
consent or the permission of the plaintiff.”
3.26 We submit my Lord that the effect of the refusal of this admonition
by the 1st Defendant/Respondent as it affects the use of all patented
materials of the Plaintiff/Applicant amount to denying her of the fruit
of her labour, while the Defendants/Respondents, most especially the
1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents continue to harvest the fruit of
the Plaintiff/Applicant’s labour by employing various tactics to
frustrate the Judgments and Orders of this Honourable Court in their
favour.
3.27 Similarly, in in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 where the Court

granted all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff (also the
Plaintiff/Applicant herein), Hon. Justice Adamu Bello held thus:
“On this score, the Plaintiff in this case is entitled to the

Judgment of the Court, this is because on the balance of
probability, the preponderance of the affidavit evidence,
the Plaintiff has proved his case against the Defendant, I
therefore enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and
grant all the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons.”
3.28 My Lord, relief 6 in that case sought by the Plaintiff and granted by
His Lordship is a declaration, viz:
“That by virtue of reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above and sections

1, 2, 3 and 6(2) of the Patent and Designs Act, any action or
actions whatsoever and howsoever taken or purtorted to
have been taken by the Defendant relating to the said
product without the prior and express license, consent,
authority and/or approval of the Plaintiff is
unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful and is therefore Null and
Void”
3.29 Similarly, the Court granted relief 7, which is a perpetual injunction

viz:
102
“THAT AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION is
hereby granted restraining the 1st Defendant either by
itself, agents, privies, surrogates or any other persons(s)
whosoever from registering, issuing, approving the
issuance and/or re-issuance of the Plaintiff’s valid and
subsisting patents and/or designs or any obvious derivative
and/or imitation of the said Patents and/or Designs in and
over the Transparent Ballot Boxes and/or Electronic
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
Defendants and/or any other person or persons whosoever
or otherwise dealing with the said patented products of the
Plaintiff EXCEPT with the express and prior consent,
license and authority of the Plaintiff to that effect.”
3.30 From the foregoing, we further submit that this Honourable Court
cannot but give effect to his own Judgments and Orders without
doing violence to the tenets of public policy and/or of the Rule of
Law.
3.31 The Supreme Court, in the case of NAL MERCHANT BANK V.

MACAULAY (1986) 4 NWLR (PT. 144) PAGE 283 AT PAGES
315 – 316 thereof, severely deprecated the attitude of a defendant
who has no real defence to an action and ought not to be allowed to
dribble and frustrate the Plaintiff and cheat him out of the judgment
by delay tactics aimed simply at gaining time within which he may
continue to postpone meeting the obligation and indebtedness. May
we also commend to the attention of Your Lordship, the case of
NISHIZAWA V. JETHWANI (1984) 12 SC AT PAGE 234 where
the Supreme Court also severely frowned at and deprecated the
attitude of the Defendant aimed at frustrating the Plaintiff in
enjoying the fruit of his Judgment.
3.32 Finally, we submit that the Defendants/Respondents, especially the

1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents must be stopped from further
frustrating the Judgments and Orders of this Honourable Court as it
will continue unabated. It is now public knowledge that the 1 st and
2nd Defenmdants/Respondents have recently used all the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented products for the conduct of the
Bayelsa and Kogi States Gubernatorial elections held on 16th
November, 2019 and other subsequent elections; despite the
pendency of these Judgments and Orders against them. See the case
of KANU & ANOR. V. OBETA & ANOR. (2015) LPELR
24432(CA) (SUPRA).
103
3.33 My Lord, we submit that the Honour and Dignity of this Honourable
Court is at stake and same cannot be maintained if its Judgments and
Orders are treated disdainfully and scornfully without due respect.
Therefore, given the penchant of the 1st and 2nd
Defenmdants/Respondents to willfully disobey and to continue in
disobedience of the Judgment and Orders of this Honourable Court,
we most humbly urge Your Lordship to grant the reliefs sought by
the Plaintiff/Applicant herein.
3.34 My Lord, we submit further that the uncompromising nature of

Judgments and Orders of Court was emphatically addressed by the
Court in the case of GROUP DANONE & ANOR. V. VOLTIC
NIGERIA LTD. (2008) 34 NSCQR PT. 140, where the Supreme
Court, Per Tabai, JSC emphatically held that:
‘‘The common law rule precluding persons in disobedience

of orders of court against them from being heard in
respect of matters which they stand in disobedience of is of
respectable antiquity…’’
3.35 We further rely on the case of LAWAL-OSULA V. LAWAL-

OSULA (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 382) at 143 (1995) 3 SCNJ, PAGE
60, where the Supreme Court, Per Ogwuegbu, JSC emphatically
held that:
‘‘Where an applicant is in continuing disobedience of the

order of the court and has not the least intention of
complying with it as in this case, it will be improper for the
court to consider the exercise of its discretion in his
favour.’’
3.36 Flowing from the foregoing, we therefore submit further that the
blatant refusal to obey Court judgments and Orders, as in the instant
case, amounts to contempt of court which attracts severe legal
repercussions. In the case of YEKINI A. ABBAS & ORS V.
OLATUNJI SOLOMON & ORS (2001) 7 S.C. (PT.II) 45, IGUH,
J.S.C. emphatically stated as follows:
“There can be no doubt that it is a civil contempt of

court to refuse or neglect to do an act required by a
judgment or order of the court within the time
specified in the judgment or order or within the time
as abridged or provided for under the rules of court
104
or to disobey a judgment or order requiring a person
to abstain from doing a specified act or to act in
breach of an undertaking given to the court by a
person, on the faith of which the court sanctions a
particular cause of action or inaction. Accordingly,
the judgment or order to do, or abstain from any act
unless stipulated by the statute, may be enforced by
a writ of attachment or by committal. The
commonest instances of such a judgment or order
are orders for injunction, whether mandatory or
prohibitory, interlocutory or permanent, specific
performance and delivery of goods without an
option. Where, therefore, any person refuses or
neglect to comply with an order made against him by
a court of competent jurisdiction other than
payment of money, the court has ample jurisdiction
pursuant to provision of section 72 of the said
Sherriff and Civil Process Act to order that he be
committed to prison and detain in custody until he
has purged his contempt”
3.37 In the case of GROUP DANONE & ANOR. V. VOLTIC (NIG.)

LTD. (2008) 34 NSCQR PT.1 40, Tabai, JSC also held that:
“The common law rule precluding persons in

disobedience of orders of court against them from
being heard in respect of matters which they stand in
disobedience of is of respectable antiquity…….”
3.38 On the effect of contempt of court Orders/Judgments, Ogwuegbu,

JSC held in LAWAL-OSULA V. LAWAL-OSULA (1995) 3
SCNJ 60 that:
“Where an applicant is in continuing disobedience of

the order of the court and has not the least intention
of complying with it as in this case, it will be
improper for the court to consider the exercise of its
discretion in his favour”.
3.39 My Lord, we submit that the honour and dignity of this Hourable
Court cannot be maintained if as in the instant case, its Judgments
and Orders are treated disdainfully and scornfully without due
respect. Therefore, given the penchant of the 1 st Respondent to
willfully disobey and to continue in disobedience of the Judgments
105
and Orders of this Honourable Court, we most humbly urge your
Lordship to hold that their continuous willful disobedience to the
Judgment and Order of this Honourable Court forbidding them from
using the Applicant’s patented materials without prior and express
license, consent and authority of the Plaintiff/Applicant is
unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful and contemptuous of this
Honourable Court.
3.40 On the whole, in the consideration of this matter, we respectfully

urge Your Lordship to be guided by the precedent already
established by the past two (2) Judgments in this matter regarding the
quantum of award in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant whose rights
and privileges conferred on her by law have been denied her by
virtue of the continuous disobedience to the Judgments and Orders of
this Honourable Court by the Defendants/Respondents, particularly
the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents since May, 2003 till date.
And this denial still continues unabated.
3.41 On the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Patented Rights over Card Reader

as evidenced in EXHIBIT SOO 37:
3.42 On this point, my Noble Lord is humbly enjoined to take a forensic

look at ‘‘EXHIBIT SOO 37’’ attached to the Originating Motion
and the Affidavit in Support, sworn to by Chief (Dr) Sylvester
Osadolo Odigie, NPOM, FSM, the Group Executive Chairman/CEO
of the Applicant, (with particular reference to paragraphs 85 and 86
of the affidavit in support) which is the complete Certified True
Copies (CTC) of the Patents & Designs Certificates and its
attachments thereon; consisting of the statutory minimum condition
precedent (i.e) (The Literature, What Is Claimed; The
Specification/Diagram) as issued by the Registrar of Patents &
Designs.
3.43 To this end, the literature and the schematic diagram attached to
Exhibits 37 & 37A are relevant and enumerated as follows:
See under: ‘Specification & Description of Invention ’… page 2,
paragraph 2, more especially sub-paragraph 1a.
Under: ‘ What Is Claimed’…
106
See page 4, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 more especially sub-paragraph
II, titled ‘Electronic Parts’ Further, last paragraph of page 5 is
relevant, please.
Under ‘ Specifications & Diagrams’…
See Page 1 and more especially page 11 containing the schematic

diagram of the system.
3.44 The details herein espoused have clearly fulfilled all the mandatory
requirements as allowed in the Patent & Design Act to ascertain the
true patentee of the Card Reader, which is part of what this suit
seeks to resolve. The card reader is already subsumed in the above-
mentioned Patents and Designs exclusively owned by the
Plaintiff/Applicant.
3.45 This can be seen from the relevant portions of ‘‘EXHIBIT SOO
37’’ as stated hereunder to wit::
page 2 (under Specification and Description of Invention),
Page 3 (under What is Claimed), pages 4 and 5 (under Electroic

Parts)
page 11 (Under the Schematic and Designs Drawings).

3.46 It is our humble submission that Sections 1(b) & 3(3) i, ii, iii and
3(b) i & ii of the Patents & Designs Act under Patentable
Inventions & Patent Applications (1970 No. 60 L.N. 53 of 1971)
apply to the case at hand.
3.47 For ease of reference and for emphasis, the details of the
aforementioned provisions are reproduced, as hereunder:
1. Patentable Inventions
Sub-Section 1(b)
“If it constitutes an improvement upon a patented

invention and also is new, results from inventive
activity and is capable of industrial application.”
2. Patent Applications
Section 3
107
“A patent application shall relate to only one
invention, but may include in connection with that
invention:
Section 3(i)
(i) for any number of products;
(ii) for any number of manufacturing

processes for those products;
and
(iii) for any number of application of those

products; and
Section 3b (i & ii)
(b) claims:
(i) for any number of processes; and
(ii) for the means of working those processes,

for the resulting product or products and for
the application of those products.”
3.48 Thus, it is our humble submission that drawings from the above
extant provisions of the Patents & Designs Act, Cap. P2. Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; and having regard to the
Judgment Order of this Honorable Court dated Thursday 28th
day of January, 2014 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 and
marked as EXHIBITS SOO 28 & 28A, the Patented rights of the
Plaintiff over the ECTBB is all encompassing; i.e including, but not
limited to the Electronic Card Reader (ECR) which is also known
and called Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR).
3.49 It is our further submission that the Electronic Collapsible

Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB), is an integral part/features of
the Electronic Card Reader (ECR) which is also known and called
Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader (OCR). It is an
Enhanced and Improved derivative of the Transparent Ballot
Boxes (TBB), which the two (2) Judgments/Orders of this
Honourable Court had expressly confirmed the Plaintiff/Applicant as
being the bona-fide owner of the Patent and Design Rights in and
108
over the (ECTBB) in Suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 and
FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on 5th Day of June, 2012 and
28th Day of January, 2014, as particularly ordered in Reliefs 3 and
1 respectively, in both subsisting Enrolled Judgments/Orders. We
also rely on “EXHIBITS SOO 37 to 37A, which are the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s Certified True Copies of the Patent Right
No. RP. 1662 and Design Right No. RD. 13841 in and over the
(ECTBB), as encapsulated above; which includes the details of
the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Specifications, drawings and Literature
on (ECTBB).
3.50 The Plaintiff/Applicant has demonstrated clearly that the 1st

Defendant had severally awarded contracts for the supply of Smart
Card Reader (SCR), also known as Electronic Card Reader
(ECR) or Optical Card (OCR) for the General election circles
for/from years 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019, without the written
consent and approval of the Plaintiff/Applicant first sought and
obtained. It is our further submission that the product, the (ECR
and/or OCR) forms part of, constitutes an improvement upon an
existing patented invention and is an integral part of the (ECTBB),
which evidently is an enhanced version of the (TBB). Aforesaid Sub-
section 1(b) of the Patents and Designs Act cited refers: insofar as
anything within the scope of a patent is covered; as far as it conforms
to the condition of the combined effect set out in the Sub-section
1(b) above and 3(3) i, ii, iii and 3(b) i & ii.
3.51 The particulars of Smart Card Reader (SCR) or Optical Card Reader
(OCR) or Electronic Card Reader (ECR) and associated
modifications thereto as purchased by the 1st Defendant/Respondent
are clearly stated hereunder:
i. SCR Hard Ware Modifications

for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)..................₦4, 258,820,000.000.00
ii. Purchase of charging Banks (24 port) for SCR’s
for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)………..…₦ 89,200,000.00
iii Purchase of 24 port software upgrade systems for SCR’s

for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)………...…₦ 72,955,500.00
iv Purchase of SCR’s replacements for SCR’s

for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)…………...₦ 1, 052,496,900.00
109
v Purchase of applicable battery life span check machine
for SRC’s for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)…..₦ 84,000, 000.00
vi Software upgrade of Card Reader for verification

and authentication of voters (at PU level)
for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)……………₦ 20,158, 320.00
vii Upgrade of PVC & SCR’s accreditation backend

for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)………………₦ 84,000, 000.00
viii Smart Card Reader Software upgrade for INEC Voter

authentication system (IVAS) an improvement of its
AFIS software for 2019 elections
iv Replacement of aging SCR batteries and

SAM Cards for 2019 elections (supplementary budget)…₦ 1 049,994, 880.00
X Purchase of new SIMs with special registration with

NCC-for SCR’s and other devices for data transmission
(with data bundles) for 2019 elections
TOTAL:…………………………………… ₦ 7, 052, 763, 600.00
3.52 To this end, the specific order capturing and pertaining to the
referenced Judgment Order 1, of EXHIBITS SOO 28 & 28A (at
Paragraph 74 of the affidavit in support) is reproduced below for
ease of:
1. “That an order is being made that the Plaintiff is the
bonafide owner of the Patent Right No. RP16642 and
Copyrights Designs No. RD13841 in and over Electronic
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) and
Patent Rights No. RP. NG/P2010/202 – Proof of Address
System/Scheme (PASS) (Embedded with the Concept of
the Coded Metal Plate) and the process and application of
these products respectively to produce the Voters’
Register.”
3.53 Submit that the extract of the judgment referred herewith
encapsulates the Card Reader as envisaged by the Patent Right No.
RP16642 and Copyrights Designs No. RD13841 issued under the
Patent and Designs Act as transcribed. This is so because the law is
well-settled to the effect that a patentee can have a patent generally
110
over a particular product together with every other patented product
subsumed under such a broader patented product or design. See
Section 3(3),(a),(i),(ii) and (iii); (b)(i) and (ii) of the Patent and
Designs Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
3.54 On the point that the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to the reliefs

sought:
3.55 My Lord, Order 44 Rule 2(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2019 provides thus:
“Order 44 Rule 2(1): The Court may, on application made

by summons at any stage of proceeding in a cause or
matter, direct any necessary account or inquiry to be taken
or made.”
3.56 On this score, we respectfully urge this Honourable Court to grant

Reliefs 16, 17, 18 and 19 being sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant.
3.57 Furthermore, it is our humble submission that by the clear provisions

of Sections 25 and 26 the Patent and Designs Act, Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria, 2004, this Honourable Court has the
unfettered powers to grant reliefs where it has been established that
the patented rights of a patentee has been infringed. In the instant
case this Honourable Court has already made findings and
determined this issue relating to the infringement of the
Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented rights in and over the said products in
favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant in Suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11
and FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 delivered on 5th Day of June, 2012
and 28th Day of January, 2014 respectively.
‘‘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, injunctions, injunction, accounts
or otherwise shall be available to the plaintiff as is
111
available in any corresponding proceedings in
respect of the infringement of other proprietary
rights.
‘‘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.
3.58 On this legal premise, we respectfully urge this Honourable Court to

grant the substantive reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 being sought by the
Plaintiff/Applicant in this suit. On this point, we also refer this
Honourable Court to Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (As
Amended) which provides for the adequate compensation of the
owner of any property, be it landed or intellectual property as in the
instant case. Therefore, the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to special,
exemplary and general damages for the continuous and continued use
of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s patented products and concepts after the
delivery of said judgments of this Honourable Court which are still
valid and subsisting till date.
3.59 It is also our humble submission that one of the remedies available to
a legitimate patentee of a patented product is by way of an order
directing the infringing Defendant to deliver-up the patented
producuts for destruction. Where a Plaintitf has sought a relief of this
nature, it is our humble submission that the court will, in appropriate
circumstances, grant this equitable relief. The relief for the delivery-
up of the infringed patented products for destruction was granted by
the court in the cases of SUMAL FOODS V. WHOLESOME
FOODS PROCESSING C. LTD. (1990) F.H.C. 1, PAGE 143 AT
PAGE 167; CONTROLLED PLASTICS LIMITED V. BLACK
HORSE PLASTICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED (1990) F.H.C. 1,
PAGE 180 AT PAGE 199, wherein the Court ordered the
Defendants to deliver up for destruction within seven (7) days the
packets of chewing gum and the large plastic colanders in their
possession or under their control. On this point, we also rely on the
book titled: Intellectual Property, The Law And Practice of
Copyright, Trade Marks, Patents And Industrial Designs In
112
Nigeria (1st Edition Published in 2007) at page 467 thereof by F.
O. Babafemi.
3.60 On this score, we also respectfully urge this Honourable Court grant
the alternative reliefs 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 also being sought by
the Plaintiff/Applicant for the Defendants/Respondents to deliver up
all the patented products i.e the Voting Cublicles, the Transparent
Ballot Boxes, the Data-base for the Voter’s Register and its derivable
implements thereof such as Voter’s Cards, Smart Card Reader
(otherwise called Optical Card Reader) etc. for public destruction.
3.61 We submit with respect that this Honourable Court has the power to
grant the reliefs sought by the Applicant. On the meaning of the term
“consequential order”, in the case of A.G. FEDERATION V. A. I.
C. LTD (2000) 6 S.C (PT.1) 175, Ejiwunmi, JSC stated that:
“A consequential order is not one merely incidental

to a decision but one necessarily flowing directly
and naturally from and inevitably consequent upon
it. It must be giving effect to the Judgment already
given not by granting an unclaimed or unproven
relief.”
3.62 Similarly, in EAGLE SUPER PACK (NIG.) LTD V. ACB PLC

(2006) 19 NWLR (PT.1013) 20, Tobi, JSC stated that:
“A consequential order is an order that follows as a

result of the earlier one which can be called for this
purpose as the main order. It may have an indirect
or secondary result in the relief awarding process. A
consequential order is appurtenant to the main or
principal order. A clearly fresh order cannot be a
consequential one. That will certainly throw
overboard the English meaning of the word.”
3.63 On the power of the Honourable Court to grant equitable remedy, in

the case of ILONA V. IDAKWO & ANOR (2003) 5 S.C. 216, the
Supreme Court, per Edozie, JSC, held as follows:
“As in any other equitable remedy, the Court can

order an injunction even where it is not specifically
claimed but appears incidentally necessary to protect
established rights.”
113
3.64 My Lord, in the case of FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD &
ANOR V. EZEGBU & ORS (1993) 6 SCNJ 112, Kawu, JSC held
also as follows:
“While it is my view that a Court should not

generally grant to a party a relief not claimed by that
party, there is nothing wrong in a Court, in the
exercise of its inherent power, to grant to a party a
relief which, in the circumstances of the case that
party is entitled.”
3.65 On the principle guiding the Court in granting consequential relief, in

EZE & ORS V. GOV. OF ABIA STATE & ORS (1914) LPELR-
23277 (S.C), Onnoghen, JSC held as follows:
"It is under the above general principle of law that

another principle was developed or emerged; that of
consequential relief which is a principle that enables
a court of law to grant to a party a relief incidental
to the main relief(s) and which was/were not claimed
by the party in question. It is designed to enable the
Court do justice between the parties. It is in line with
the above that this Court had ordered payment of
salary and wages for the intervening period even
though not expressly claimed, such as in the case of
Expenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 S.C. 7 at 81- 82; Nneji
v. Chukwu (1985) 3 NWLR (pt. 81) 184 at 208; Sadiq
v. Bundi (1991) 8 NWLR (pt 210) 443 at 457;
Ladejobi v. A/G, Federation (1982) 3 NCLR 564;
Usiobaifo v. Usibaifo (2005) 3 NWLR (pt. 913) 665 at
675; Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 1 LLR (pt. 247) 237;
Ogunyande v. Oshunkeye (2007) (2007) 15 NWLR
(pt. 1057) 218."
3.66 We further submit that this Honourable Court has the power to grant
consequential reliefs as contained in this motion. In the case of
AMAECHI V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION & ORS (2007) 7 – 10 S.C. 172, Oguntade, JSC
held as follows:
“There can be no doubt that there is a plenitude of

power available to this Court to do which the justice
of the case deserves. It enables a Court to grant
114
consequential reliefs in the interest of justice even
where such have not been specifically claimed.”
3.67 On the extent of powers of Court to grant consequential reliefs, also

in the case of RT. HON. ROTIMI CHIBUIKE AMAECHI V.
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION &
ORS (2008) S.C. the Supreme Court held thus:
“It is the law even where a person has not

specifically asked for a relief from a Court, the
Court has the power to grant such a relief as a
consequential relief. A Consequential order must be
one made giving effect to the Judgment which it
follows. It is not an order made subsequent to a
Judgment which derails from the extraneous
Judgment or contains matters. It is settled law that a
Court can order an injunction even if it is not
specifically claimed but appears incidentally
necessary to protect established rights. See Atolagbe
v. Shorun (1985) 4 S.C (Pt.1) 250; (19985) 1 NWLR
(PT.2) 360; Okupe v. F.B.I.R. (1974) 1 NWLR 422;
Liman v. Mohammed (1999) 9 NWLR (PT. 617) 116.”
3.68 Thus, we humbly urge the Honourable Court to resolve the sole issue
in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant and to hold that the continuous
use of the Applicant’s patented products, concepts and designs by the
Respondents, without the Applicant’s prior written and express
license, consent, authorization and/or approval is a wanton and
willful disobedience of the valid and subsisting Judgments and
Orders of this Honourable Court. The said judgments and orders
forbid the acts of the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents and render
their conducts illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. This also
amounts to contempt of court which is frown at all levels by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such as this Honourable Court.
Therefore, the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in
this case.
3.69 Furthermore, we respectfully urge this Honourable Court to be

guided, in the consideration of this matter, by the precedent already
established by the past two (2) judgments in this matter regarding the
quantum of award in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant whose rights
and privileges conferred on her by law have been denied her by
virtue of the continuous use and disobedience to the jdugments and
115
Orders of this Honourable Court by the Respondents, most
especially, the 1st Defendant/Respondent since May, 2003 and this
denial is still continuing unabated.
3.70 Finally, we, most humbly, urge this Honourable Court to stand
firmly in defence of the honour and integrity of the Judgments and
Orders of this Honourable Court by granting the prayers/reliefs of
the Plaintiff/Applicant in this Originating Motion so as to
demonstrate to the 1st Defendant/Respondent and the whole world
the consequence of wilfull disobedience to the judgments and Orders
of the Honourable Court. This will also serve as a deterence to
others.
4.0. CONCLUSION:
4.1. We most humbly urge your Lordship to stand firmly in the defence
of the honour and integrity of the Judgments and Orders of this
Honourable Court by granting the prayers/reliefs of the Applicant in
this motion in order to demonstrate to the 1st Defendant the
consequences for their willful disobedience to the Judgments and
Orders of the Honourable Court which will also serve as the
deterrent to others.
4.2. That it will be in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to
grant all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant in this case.
4.3. That we have made a full disclosure of all material facts relevant to
this application and matter.
DATED this 4th day of March, 2020.
CHIEF ASSAM E. ASSAM, (SAN),

CHIEF KARINA TUNYAN, (SAN),
AKINLOLU AKINTEWE, ESQ.,
SOJI TOKI, ESQ.,
JOHN OKORIKO, ESQ.,
JAMES ODIBA, ESQ.,
E. K. OKOKO, ESQ.,
ISAAC O. IBUOYE, ESQ.
OLAKUNLE LAWAL, ESQ.,
ABDULJALIL MUSA, ESQ.
C/O KARINA TUNYAN SAN & CO.,

28, BLANTYRE STREET,
NEAR ECWA CHURCH,
WUSE II,
ABUJA.
116
TEL: 08066315057, 08028781274.
E-Mail:odibaja@yahoo.com;
meetesiri4justice@yahoo.com
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. THE 1ST & 2ND DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS:

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC),
PLOT 436, ZAMBEZI CRESCENT,
MAITAMA, FCT - ABUJA.
2. THE 3RDDEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
REGISTRAR OF PATENTS& DESIGNS,
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF TRADE & INVESTMENT,
COMMERCIAL LAW DEPARTMENT,
PATENT AND DESIGNS SECTION,
OLD SECRETARIAT, AREA 1,
GARKI, FCT- ABUJA.
3. THE 4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE,
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,
SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
FCT – ABUJA.

HOLDEN AT ABUJA
117
BETWEEN
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED…………………………..……..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
AND
COMMISSION (INEC)
..DEFENDANTS/
MINISTER OF JUSTICE
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MULTIPLICITY OF ACTION/SUIT.

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 affidavit evidence I depose to
herein is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and state as follows -
THAT:
1. I am the Group Executive Chairman/CEO of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein and I
am the deponent herein whose photograph is attached; by virtue of which I am very
conversant with the facts deposed to herein.
2. I have the consent and authority of the Plaintiff/Applicant to swear to this affidavit
of Non-Multiplicity of Action/Suit.
3. I know as a fact that this suit is the only suit filed by the Plaintiff against the
Defendants over the subject matter herein.
4. That this affidavit is needed for official and record purposes.
5. That I, CHIEF (DR.) SYLVESTER OSADOLO ODIGIE, NPOM, FSM make

this solemn declaration conscientiously believing same to be true, correct and in
accordance with the Oaths Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
………………………………...
DEPONENT
SWORN at the Federal High Court Registry,
Abuja, this……..day of February, 2020.
BEFORE ME
COMMISSIONER FOR OATH
118

Bedding Holdings New Originating Summons

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 Holdings New Originating Summons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED………...…….....PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL

2. CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT NATIONAL

4. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION &

BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 43, 44 (1) (a) & (b), OF THE

TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court shall be moved on the

1. A DECLARATION THAT the Judgments and Orders of this

2. A DECLARATION THAT the Defendants/Respondents,

3. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff/Applicant pursuant to the

4. A DECLARATION that based on the subsisting Judgments and

5. A DECLARATION that pursuant to the subsisting Judgment and

6. A DECLARATION THAT pursuant to the subsisting Judgment

7. A DECLARATION that by virtue and express provisions of

8. A DECLARATION that the use of the Smart Card Reader (SCR),

9. A DECLARATION that the continuous use of the Transparent

10. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff/Applicant is the sole and duly

11. A DECLARATION that the importation, sale, supply, utilization or

12. AN ORDER directing the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to

13. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the

14. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the

16. AN ORDER directing the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to

17. AN ORDER directing the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to

18. AN ORDER directing the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to

19. AN ORDER directing the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Respondents to

20. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents, especially the

21. AN DECLARATION that the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to be

22. A DECLARATION THAT the omission, neglect, refusal and/or

23. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the

24. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents particularly 1st &

25. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the

26. AN ORDER directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents that

27. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the

28. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the

“Please be informed that the product and or concept is covered by

29. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the

30. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the

31. AN ORDER directing the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the

32. AN ORDER directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents that

33. AN ORDER DIRECTING the Defendants/Respondents to deliver

34. AN ORDER as to costs.

35. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR OTHER ORDERS

GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION.

(2) That Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 was commenced by an

(3) At the conclusion of the hearing of the above case, this

“ … restraining the 1st Defendant either by itself, agent,

(4) In the same vein, this Honourable Court further made a

“ That by virtue of reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above and Sections

(5) That also Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 was commenced

(6) That by a well considered Judgment delivered in respect of the

“… N17, 258,820,000.00 (Seventeen Billion, Two Hundred

“That the Defendants are compelled to obtain the Plaintiff’s

(8) That as a corollary of the Judgment/Orders relating to Suit

“AND further take notice, that if you pay to the Registrar of

(10) Furthermore, the Plaintiff/Applicant is also the duly registered

(12) That the Defendants/Respondents, particularly the 1st & 2nd

(16) That the situation of the Plaintiff/Applicant in this matter is one of

DATED this 4th day of March, 2020.

CHIEF ASSAM E. ASSAM (SAN),

C/O KARINA TUNYAN SAN & CO.,

1. THE 1ST& 2NDDEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS:

3. THE 4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA