IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

HOLDEN AT ABUJA.

APPEAL NO.: SC /2021.

APPEAL NO. CA/A/132A/2014.
SUIT NO. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010.
BETWEEN:

BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED……………………………….APPELLANT

AND

1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

2. PROFESSOR ATTAHIRU MOHAMMED JEGA
(CHAIRMAN, INEC)
3. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION .
…….RESPONDENTS
AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE
4. HAIER ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
CORPORATION LIMITED.
5. ZINOX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

PROPOSED NOTICE OF APPEAL

TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Court
of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Holden at the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
contained in the Judgment of HONOURABLE JUSTICE UCHECHUKWU
ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (PRESIDING); HONOURABLE JUSTICE STEPHEN
JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. (MEMBER) and HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. O.
WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A. (MEMBER) delivered on Friday, the 18th day of
June, 2021 DOTH hereby appeal to the Supreme Court, FCT-Abuja, upon the
Grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will, at the hearing of the appeal, seek the reliefs
set out in paragraph 4.

AND the Appellant further states that the names and addresses of the persons directly
affected by the appeal are those set out in paragraph 5.

2. PART OF THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT COMPLAINED

OF:

The whole Judgment/decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division,

Holden at Abuja, and delivered on Friday, the 18th day of June, 2021 by
HONOURABLE JUSTICE UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
(PRESIDING); HONOURABLE JUSTICE STEPHEN JONAH ADAH,
J.C.A. (MEMBER) and HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. O. WILLIAMS-
DAWODU, J.C.A. (MEMBER) of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial
1
 Division, Holden at Abuja, Rivers State (hereinafter simply referred to as ‘‘the
Lower Court’’).

3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

GROUND ONE: ERROR IN LAW.

The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division erred in law
when they held that:
‘‘It needs be clearly stated that the presentation and tendering of
Exhibits B, C and D without more is not the total proof or
establishment of the 1st Respondent’s case.’’

‘‘The fact that the 3rd and 4th Respondents testified that they did not
have any patent over the products they supplied to the 1 st Appellant
should not and did not automatically translate into an infringement
of the patent right of the 1 st Respondent. The answer to whether the
1st Respondent discharged the burden of proof from the record
before this Court is in the negative.’’
and thereby occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR.

1. Under Section 6 (1) & (2) of the Patent and Design Act, Cap. P2, Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, in proving or establishing a claim of
patent infringement, the Plaintiff is required to adduce evidence showing
ownership of the patent, identification of alleged infringement and an
examination of the Patent Claims.

2. The evidence of the Plaintiff in establishing its claim for patent

infringement was un-contradicted by the Defendants. The standard of proof
in patent infringement is the balance of probabilities. The Plaintiff
established a prima facie case on the balance of probabilities that the
infringement of its patent was more probable than not. The burden of
producing evidence to rebut the claim of the Plaintiff had shifted to the
Defendant.

3. The Appellant copiously pleaded at Paragraph 13 of the Amended

Statement of Claim contained in the Judgment of the trial court and
testified at Paragraph 16 of the Plaintiff witness Statement on Oath that
“the process and application being employed or adopted by the
Respondents for the procurement/compilation and use of the new 2011
Voters’ Register being procured by the Respondents seriously infringes on
the two patented products of the Appellant both in terms of the tangible
products to be utilized and/or the process and application of the said
products to obtain the general bio-data information about every voter in
2
 Nigeria (such as their name, address, age, sex, unit, ward, town, local
government, state, etc.) towards the compilation/procurement of a new and
comprehensive Voters’ Register.

4. In proof of its claims that there is a contract awarded by INEC to Zinox

and other parties for the supply, production, or sale of components used to
carry out the alleged infringement, the Appellant tendered a newspaper
publication which was admitted as Exhibit ‘‘F’’.

5. Additionally, during cross-examination by the 5th Respondent (ZINOX),

DW1 (INEC’s 1st Respondent’s witness) tendered a letter of award to 5th
Respondent for the procurement of DDC Machines which was admitted as
Exhibit “L”. Letter of award (Exhibit ‘‘L’’) corroborates the case of the
Appellant that a contract was entered into between the parties for the
supply of the component parts used to carry out the infringement.

6. The Appellant pleaded at paragraphs 19 and 20 (amongst other

paragraphs) of its Amended Statement of Claim to the effect that the
Respondents used the Appellant’s process and application in and over its
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of
Address System Scheme (PASS) to eventually produce and actually
produced the 2011 Voters’ Register and consequently amounted to
infringement.

7. The Appellant’s sole witness – Chief Dr. Sylvester Osadolo Odigie,

NPOM gave copious evidence-in-chief at paragraphs 22 and 23 of this
Written Statement on Oath to the effect that the Respondents used the
Appellant’s process and application in and over its Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address System
Scheme (PASS) to eventually produce and actually produced the 2011
Voters’ Register and consequently amounted to infringement.

8. At paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said Written Statement on Oath, the

Appellant’s sole witness testified to the effect that the Respondents used
the Appellant’s process and application in and over its Electronic
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address
System Scheme (PASS) to derive voters’ bio-data such as his/her name,
age, sex, address, unit, ward, town, local government, state etc to produce
the 2011 Voters’ Register without first obtaining the prior consent and
approval of the Appellant to that effect.

9. The evidence of the Appellant’s sole witness to the effect that the
Respondents used the Appellant’s process and application in and over its
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of
Address System Scheme (PASS) to derive voter’s bio-data such as his/her
name, age, sex, address, unit, ward, town, local government, state etc to
3
 produce and eventually produced the 2011 Voters’ Register without first
obtaining the prior license, consent and approval of the Appellant to that
effect was not rebutted by the Respondents.

10.The provisions of Section 25(3) of the Patent and Design Act raises a
presumption in respect of the process and application of a patent to the
effect that if a process by which a new product is to be made is patented, it
shall be presumed that a defendant who makes the product and is sued for
the infringement of the process has manufactured the product by means of
the patented process and application. The onus of disproving the
presumption lies on the defendant.

11.The similarities in the method or process and application involved between

the Appellant’s ECTBB and PASS on the one hand and the Respondents’
Direct Data Capture Machines on the other hand in the manufacture of the
infringing 2011 Voter’s Register, both of which involved the collation and
compilation of voter’s bio-data such as his/her name, age, sex, address,
finger print, passport photographs, was highlighted by the Appellant in
proof of the infringement in both its pleadings and evidence led by its
witness and also corroborated by the Respondents’ pleadings and evidence
of their witnesses.

12.The Appellant discharged the burden of proof placed on it to show how the
Appellant infringed its patent rights and the burden of disproving it shifted
to the Respondents; which the Respondents failed woefully to discharge in
return.

GROUND TWO: ERROR IN LAW.

The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division erred in law
when they held that:
‘‘It is clearly seen that the PW1 in his testimony fully described the
substance and contents of the patent rights, the ECTBB and the
PASS, both of which are contained in Exhibits B, C and D. However,
it failed to show or so clearly state whether it was the 1 st
Respondent’s process and application of its ECTBB and PASS that
were made use of by the Appellants and the 3 rd and 4th Respondents,
which eventually produced the Voters’ register and consequently
amounted to infringement. See pages 1297 to 1300 of the record.’’
and thereby occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR.

(1) The Appellant’s cause of action is based on the alleged infringement of its
patented processes by Respondents through the act of supplying, using or
applying of the said patented process in order to produce the Voter’s register. The
4
 Appellant identified the act of infringement both in its pleadings and testimony
before the trial court that the Respondents awarded a contract for the “supply” of
equipment in order to produce the Voter’s register. Based on the scope of
protection conferred by the patent, the Appellant’s patented processes involve the
application of the said equipment in order to produce the voter’s register. The
supply of a substantial portion of the components of the patented processes
constitutes an infringement of the Appellant’s patent.

(2) The scope of protection conferred by a patent is based on a construction or

interpretation of the terms of the claims, descriptions and specifications contained
in the patent. The Appellant highlighted the elements of the substance and
content of its patented processes which when compared with the equipment that
was used to produce the voter’s register by the Respondents shows similarities
that amount to the alleged infringement of the patented processes.

(3) The Appellant pleaded at paragraphs 19 and 20 (amongst other paragraphs)

of its Amended Statement of Claim to the effect that the Respondents used the
Appellant’s process and application in and over its Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address System Scheme
(PASS) to eventually produce and actually produced the 2011 Voters’ Register
and consequently amounted to infringement.

(4) The Appellant’s sole witness – Chief Dr. Sylvester Osadolo Odigie, NPOM
gave copious evidence-in-chief at paragraphs 22 and 23 of this Written
Statement on Oath to the effect that the Respondents used the Appellant’s process
and application in and over its Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box
(ECTBB) and Proof of Address System Scheme (PASS) to eventually produce
and actually produced the 2011 Voters’ Register and consequently amounted to
infringement.

(5) At paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said Written Statement on Oath, the Appellant’s
sole witness testified to the effect that the Respondents used the Appellant’s
process and application in and over its Electronic Collapsible Transparent
Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address System Scheme (PASS) to derive
voters’ bio-data such as his/her name, age, sex, address, unit, ward, town, local
government, state etc to produce the 2011 Voters’ Register without first obtaining
the prior consent and approval of the Appellant to that effect.

(6) The evidence of the Appellant’s sole witness to the effect that the Respondents
used the Appellant’s process and application in and over its Electronic
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address System
Scheme (PASS) to derive voter’s bio-data such as his/her name, age, sex,
address, unit, ward, town, local government, state etc to produce and eventually
produced the 2011 Voters’ Register without first obtaining the prior consent and
approval of the Appellant to that effect was not rebutted by the Respondents.

5
(7) The 5th Respondent (Zinox) admitted the undisputed fact at paragraph 3 of its
Amended Statement of Defence that process of the production of the 2011
Voters’ Register, for which the Direct Data Capture Machines were used,
involved the collation and compilation of voter’s bio-data such as his/her name,
age, sex, address, finger print, passport photographs.

(8) The similarities in the method or process and application involved between the
Appellant’s ECTBB and PASS on the one hand and the Respondents’ equipment
on the other hand used in the manufacture and production of the infringing 2011
Voter’s Register, both of which involved the collation and compilation of voter’s
bio-data such as his/her name, age, sex, address, finger print, passport
photographs, was highlighted by the Appellant in proof of the infringement in
both its pleadings and evidence led by its witness and also corroborated by the
Respondents’ pleadings and evidence of their witnesses.

GROUND THREE: ERROR IN LAW.

The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division erred in law
when they held that:
‘‘On pages 1313, 1484 and 1486 of the record, the testimony of the
witnesses for the Appellants and the other Respondents to the effect
that it is only the 1 st Respondent that is known with the said patents,
ECTBB and PASS, in my view and respectfully, could not be
interpreted to mean that there was definitely an infringement by the
Appellants and the other Respondents. See page 1602 of the record.
Neither in my humble view could such testimony relieve the 1 st
Respondent of the burden of proof of how there was an infringement
to its patent rights.’’
and thereby occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR.

(1) A person who, without authority, does or causes the act of making,
importing, selling, supplying or applying the patented process or a product
derived from the patented process is statutorily liable for infringement. The
1st Respondent (INEC) caused the act of supplying components (that
comprised the patented process) through the award of a contract to the 4 th
and 5th Defendants and therefore wilfully, intentionally and knowingly
caused the infringement to occur while being aware of the existence of the
Appellant’s patent over the process or method for producing the voter’s
register by using the components listed under the patent claims.

(2) The onus lies on the Plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of
infringement that persuades the Judge to find that the infringement was
proved based on the balance of probabilities or the preponderance of
evidence. The Appellant discharged the onus of proving a prima facie case
6
 based on the balance of probabilities by adducing prima facie evidence that
established the allegation of infringement of its patented processes by the
Respondent who awarded a contract for the supply of components in order
to produce the voter’s register. The burden of producing evidence shifted
to the Respondents. to disprove the Appellant’s assertion.

(3) The trite principle of law is that facts admitted need no longer be proved.
The Respondents acknowledgment of the Appellant’s patented processes
amounted to an admission of a material fact in issue which no longer
required proof by the Appellant. The admission of the Respondents
corroborates the Appellant’s assertion of ownership over the process or
method of using the components identified in the patent claims to produce
the voter’s register.

(4) The trial Court properly evaluated the facts and evidence adduced before it
based on the construction of the patent claims and a finding on the
allegation that the Respondents had caused a contract to be awarded for the
supply of the infringing components used to produce the 2011 Voter’s
Register. The testimony and evidence of the 1st Respondent’s witness that
they had knowledge of the Appellant’s patented process amounts to
admitting that the Respondents knowingly caused the doing of the
statutorily precluded/prohibited infringing activities without the authority
of the Appellant to that effect.

(5) The trial Court’s finding of facts corresponds to the documentary and oral
evidence before the Court. An Appellate Court should not interfere with
the finding of facts by a Judge or substitute its own views for that of the
trial Court unless the trial Court was misdirected into arriving at a wrong
conclusion. The trial Court properly evaluated the evidence by considering
the facts and testimony and ascribed probative value to the evidence that
established the assertion that the Respondents’ activities infringed the
Appellant’s patent rights. The Respondents were fully informed of the
Appellant’s rights over the patented processes. Again, the Respondents
admitted prior knowledge of the Appellant’s patented process yet
nevertheless proceeded to supply the infringing component parts for the
production of the Voter’s register.

(6) The Appellant pleaded at paragraphs 19 and 20 (amongst other

paragraphs) of its Amended Statement of Claim to the effect that the
Respondents used the Appellant’s process and application in and over its
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of
Address System Scheme (PASS) to eventually produce and actually
produced the 2011 Voters’ Register and consequently amounted to
infringement.

7
 (7) The Appellant’s sole witness – Chief Dr. Sylvester Osadolo Odigie,
NPOM gave copious evidence-in-chief at paragraphs 22 and 23 of this
Written Statement on Oath to the effect that the Respondents used the
Appellant’s process and application in and over its Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address System
Scheme (PASS) to eventually produce and actually produced the 2011
Voters’ Register and consequently amounted to infringement.

(8) At paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said Written Statement on Oath, the

Appellant’s sole witness testified to the effect that the Respondents used
the Appellant’s process and application in and over its Electronic
Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address
System Scheme (PASS) to derive voters’ bio-data such as his/her name,
age, sex, address, unit, ward, town, local government, state etc to produce
the 2011 Voters’ Register without first obtaining the prior consent and
approval of the Appellant to that effect.

(9) The evidence of the Appellant’s sole witness to the effect that the
Respondents used the Appellant’s process and application in and over its
Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of
Address System Scheme (PASS) to derive voter’s bio-data such as his/her
name, age, sex, address, unit, ward, town, local government, state etc to
produce and eventually produced the 2011 Voters’ Register without first
obtaining the prior license, consent and approval of the Appellant to that
effect was not rebutted by the Respondents.

(6) The similarities in the method or process and application involved between
the Appellant’s ECTBB and PASS on the one hand and the Respondents’
Direct Data Capture Machines on the other hand in the manufacture of the
infringing 2011 Voter’s Register, both of which involved the collation and
compilation of voter’s bio-data such as his/her name, age, sex, address,
finger print, passport photographs, was highlighted by the Appellant in
proof of the infringement in both its pleadings and evidence led by its
witness and also corroborated by the Respondents’ pleadings and evidence
of their witnesses.

(7) The Appellant discharged the burden of proof placed on it to show how the
Appellant infringed its patent rights and the burden of disproving it shifted
to the Respondents; which the Respondents failed woefully to discharge in
return.

GROUND FOUR: MISDIRECTION ON FACTS.

The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division erred in law
when they held that:

8
 ‘‘Further that, the software used for the integration of the
component parts was supplied by the 1st Appellant, the Open VR
linus based free software which was produced in-house by the 1 st
Appellant and not the 1st Respondent’s patent. And that the bio-data
of the registrant could not be peculiarly generated even by the 1 st
Respondent’s ECTBB and PASS but has to be first provided by the
registrant. The testimony in that regard remained unchallenged from
the Record and is good defence against the case of the 1 st Respondent.
See pages 1465 to 1472 of the Record Vol. II.’’
and thereby occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR.
(1) The scope of protection conferred by a patent is determined by the terms of the
claims; the plans and drawings included in the patent are used to interpret the
claims. From the construction or interpretation of the patent claims, the use or
application of the various components in order to produce the voter’s register
amounts to an infringement of the Appellant’s patented process. A purposive
construction of the patent claims reveals that the substance and form of the
Patented Process includes ancillary components necessary to program, integrate
or execute the method for producing the Voter’s register. The Patent terms
sufficiently disclosed the substance and form for performing the patented process
using the component parts. The component parts that make up the Appellant’s
patented processes were conspicuously identified by the Appellant in its
pleadings and evidence before the trial court.

(2) The extent of protection is based on a consideration of the terms of the claim and
descriptions attached thereto. The purposive doctrine of patent interpretation
involves construing the claims in order to reveal the functionality of the patented
process. The terms of the claim are construed through the eyes of a person skilled
in the art.

(3) The Appellant unambiguously and unequivocally challenged the 1st Respondent’s
assertion that the Software used to integrate the component parts was not derived
from the Appellant’s patented process. A Defendant does not raise a defence of
non-infringement by merely stating that a component used in carrying out an
alleged infringement was supplied by a third party. A third party who knowingly
supplies components that may aid or abet the infringement of a patented process
is statutorily liable for contributing or causing the doing of the alleged infringing
activity. The statutory defences of non-infringement available to defendant do not
contemplate aiding and abetting an alleged infringer to commit a patent
infringement by supplying an infringing component.

(4) It has never been the case of the Appellant that its patented process and
application of the ECTBB and PASS is used to provide the registrants’ bio-data
such as his/her name, age, sex, address, unit, ward, town, local government, state
etc to produce the 2011.
9
(5) The case of the Appellant is that its patented process and application of the
ECTBB and PASS is used to derive, obtain, get, collate and compile the bio-data
of registrants such as their names, age, sex, address, unit, ward, town, local
government, state etc to produce the 2011 Voter’s Register.

(6) The assertion of the Respondents that the bio-data of the registrant would first be
provided by the registrant and could not be peculiarly generated even by the 1 st
Respondent’s ECTBB and PASS does not affect the case of the Appellant in any
way; even though it remained unchallenged by the Appellant.

(7) The holding of the Lower Court in this regard is perverse.

GROUND FIVE: ERROR IN LAW.

The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division erred in law
when they held that:
‘‘In consequence of the foregoing, one is unable to find as the
Court in favour of the 1st Respondent that ‘‘it has also been
established that the process employed is an infringement on the
plaintiff’s rights.

In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The

judgment of the Court below in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010,
delivered on January28th 2014, is hereby set aside.’’
and thereby occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR.

(1) A finding of patent infringement involves a two-step process consisting

of firstly, construing the patent claims then a finding of whether the
alleged infringing activity falls within the scope of protection conferred
by the patent.

(2) Statutorily, any person who makes, imports, sells, uses, supplies or
applies a patented process to obtain a product as a result of the patented
process has infringed the rights of the patent holder. The trial Court
evaluated the evidence and considered the components of the patented
processes as highlighted by the Appellant in its pleadings and testimony.
The trial Court correctly determined that the Respondents’ activity of
supplying and/or applying the various component parts in order to derive
the voter’s register amounted to an infringement of the Appellant’s
patented process. The Appellant adduced sufficient evidence to establish
that the Respondents had infringed its patented processes by awarding
contract for the supply of the alleged infringing components which were
used to compile the Voter’s register.
10
 (3) There is overwhelming evidence on record before both the trial and the
lower Court that the Respondents used the Appellant’s patented process
and application to derive voter’s bio-data such as his/her name, age, sex,
address, unit, ward, town, local government, state etc to produce and
eventually produced the 2011 Voters’ Register without first obtaining the
prior license, consent and approval of the Appellant to that effect.

(4) The Appellant successfully established before the trial Court that the
process and application employed by the Respondents without first
seeking and obtaining the prior license, consent and authorization of the
Appellant to that effect is an infringement on the Appellant’s exclusive
patent and designs rights in and over the process and application in and
over its Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and
Proof of Address System Scheme (PASS) under Section 25 of the
Patents and Designs Act.

(5) In the light of the foregoing overwhelming evidence establishing the

infringement on the Appellant’s exclusive patent and designs rights in
and over the process and application of its Electronic Collapsible
Transparent Ballot Box (ECTBB) and Proof of Address System
Scheme (PASS) by the Respondents, the judgment of the trial Court in
Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 – BEDDING HOLDINGS LTD. V.
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 5
ORS. delivered on 28th January, 2014, ought to have been affirmed by
the lower Court.

GROUND SIX:

The Judgment/decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Holden at

Abuja and delivered on Friday, the 18th day of June, 2021 Coram HONOURABLE
JUSTICE UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (PRESIDING);
HONOURABLE JUSTICE STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. (MEMBER) and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. O. WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A. (MEMBER) of
the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Holden at the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja is against the weight of evidence.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Appellant shall file more grounds of appeal on
the receipt of record of proceedings and/or the compilation of the entire record of
appeal or thereafter as the justice of the case may require.

4. RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM THE SUPREME COURT.

(1.) AN ORDER ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

11
 (2.) AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE the Judgment/decision of the Court of
Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, Holden at the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja delivered on Friday, the 18th day of June, 2021 by HONOURABLE
JUSTICE UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (PRESIDING);
HONOURABLE JUSTICE STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.
(MEMBER) and HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. O. WILLIAMS-
DAWODU, J.C.A. (MEMBER) of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial
Division by reason of the fact that the said judgment is perverse.

(3.) AN ORDER AFFIRMING the Judgment/decision of the Federal High

Court, Abuja Judicial Division in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2010 –
BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED V. INEC & ORS. delivered on
Tuesday, the 28th day of January, 2014 Coram HONOURABLE
JUSTICE IBRAHIM N. AUTA, Chief Judge (as he then was) of the
Federal High Court of Nigeria.

5. PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE APPEAL.

NAMES: ADDRESSES:

THE APPELLANT:

BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED C/O HER COUNSEL,

CHIEF KARINA TUNYAN, SAN,
OLALEKAN OJO, SAN,
MOHAMMED NDARANI MOHAMMED, SAN,
OLUSOJI TOKI, ESQ., LLM,
JOHN OKORIKO, ESQ.,
E. K. OKOKO, ESQ,
VINCENT O. OKOEDION, ESQ.,
C/O KARINA TUNYAN SAN & CO.,
APPELLANT’S COUNSEL,
28, BLANTYRE STREET,
NEAR ECWA CHURCH,
WUSE 2,
F.C. T. - ABUJA.
TEL: 0802-832-3432 OR 0803-328-2935.
E-MAIL:johnokoriko@hotmail.com
LEGAL MAIL: johnokoriko@nigerianbar.ng
THE RESPONDENTS:

(1) INDEPENDENT NATIONAL PLOT 356, ZAMBEZI CRESCENT,

ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC), MAITAMA DISTRICT A5,
FCT-ABUJA.

(2) PROF. ATTAHIRU JEGA, PLOT 356, ZAMBEZI CRESCENT,

CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT NATIONAL, MAITAMA DISTRICT A5,
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC), FCT-ABUJA.

(3) THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

12
 AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE, SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
FCT-ABUJA.

(4) HAIER ELECTRICAL 307A, ADEOLAODEKU STREET

APPLIANCES CORPORATION, VICTORIA ISLAND-LAGOS
.
OR
45/47, TOWN PLANNING WAY,
ILUPEJU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
LAGOS STATE.

5. ZINOX COMPUTERS NIGERIA LIMITED 1A, REDEMPTION CRESCENT,

GBAGADA-LAGOS.

DATED this ………………..day of …………………….., 2021.

CHIEF KARINA TUNYAN, SAN,

OLALEKAN OJO, SAN,
MOHAMMED NDARANI MOHAMMED, SAN,
OLUSOJI TOKI, ESQ., LLM,
JOHN OKORIKO, ESQ.,
E. K. OKOKO, ESQ.,
VINCENT O. OKOEDION, ESQ.,
C/O KARINA TUNYAN (S.A.N.) & CO.,
APPELLANT’S COUNSEL,
28, BLANTYRE STREET,
NEAR ECWA CHURCH,
WUSE 2,
F. C. T. - ABUJA.
TEL: 0802-832-3432 OR 0803-328-2935.
E-MAIL: johnokoriko@hotmail.com
LEGAL MAIL: johnokoriko@nigerianbar.ng

FOR SERVICE ON:

1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC),
PLOT 536, ZAMBEZI CRESCENT,
MAITAMA DISTRICT A5,
ABUJA.

2. PROF. ATTAHIRU JEGA,

CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT NATIONAL,
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC),
PLOT 536, ZAMBEZI CRESCENT,
MAITAMA DISTRICT A5,
ABUJA.

3. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,

AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE,
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

13
 SHEHU SHAGARI WAY,
F.C.T.-ABUJA.

4. HAIER ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES CORPORATION,

307A, ADEOLAODEKU STREET,
VICTORIA ISLAND-LAGOS.
OR
45/47, TOWN PLANNING WAY,
ILUPEJU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
LAGOS STATE.

5. ZINOX COMPUTERS NIGERIA LIMITED

1A, REDEMPTION CRESCENT,
GBAGADA-LAGOS.

14