get latest news from West Africa

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Friday, granted the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) sole ownership rights to the eNaira digital currency platform.
The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, issued an order of perpetual injunction to restrain a private firm, eNaira Payment Solutions Limited, from further parading itself as the registered proprietor of the “eNaira” trademark.
It held that although the company had been registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) since 2004, its choice of a name associated with Nigeria’s sovereignty was potentially misleading.
“The name chosen by the plaintiff on its incorporation is in the circumstances unregistrable due to the misleading nature of the name, which suggests government patronage,” Justice Omotosho added.
He held that evidence before the court established that the Trademark Registry, via a letter dated November 15, 2021, had notified the company about the cancellation and withdrawal of approvals issued to it in respect of its applications for the name “eNaira” in classes 36 and 42.
The judge further noted that the company was also informed that the decision was based on the fact that “eNaira is a national intellectual property and constitutes a symbol and national asset of Nigeria.”
According to the court, the private company, which instituted the action to strip the CBN of the right to ownership of the eNaira digital platform, has no greater legal right to the trademark than the apex bank, which is the 1st defendant in the matter.
“A party that has no legal right cannot be entitled to an injunction.
“The purport of this is that, prima facie, the plaintiff has no valid trademark to the exclusive use of the eNaira trademark,” the court held.
Moreover, Justice Omotosho stressed that under Section 852(2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), the CAC may refuse to register a company with a name that suggests the establishment enjoys government patronage.
“The ‘eNaira’ name is so closely linked to the legal tender of Nigeria, which is exclusively controlled by the CBN.
“The plaintiff, with the name ‘eNaira,’ even though it had been incorporated since 2004, has a misleading name.
“An average person on the street is most likely to think that the plaintiff is an agent of the Federal Government or the CBN.
“The proposed business of the plaintiff, which according to the evidence-in-chief of PW-1 is the creation and control of a digital currency on their electronic payment platform, no doubt creates the impression that the plaintiff has the authority of the Federal Government of Nigeria to issue and control a digital form of the Naira.
“A misleading name is a ground for the 3rd defendant (CAC) to direct a company to change its name,” the court added.
It held that the law permits the CAC to direct any company to change its name, with compliance expected within six weeks from the date of the directive.
“The plaintiff had six weeks to comply with the directive, which was issued on 9th December 2021.
“The plaintiff has, however, not complied with this directive.”
The court maintained that allowing the plaintiff to have control of the name is tantamount to surrendering Nigerian sovereignty to a private company.
“Any digital currency with the name ‘eNaira’ will no doubt create the impression that it is an official digital form of the Naira.
“The plaintiff cannot assert control over the ‘eNaira’ name or issue it.
“This would be disastrous for the Nigerian economy and will create skepticism among users, as it is not guaranteed by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
“The claims of the plaintiff are therefore bound to fail, while the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants will succeed on the strength of the evidence before this court.
“In the final analysis, this court will rule against the plaintiff, as the claim is incompetent on grounds that it was not brought under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.
“Furthermore, the facts and the law are against the plaintiff.
“In contrast, the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants succeed,” the court held.
As part of his consequential orders, Justice Omotosho directed the plaintiff to immediately change its name to another distinct name without the use of the word “Naira.”
The court dismissed the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/113/2021 and awarded costs of N10 million in favour of the CBN, which had also filed a counter-claim against the company.
The company had insisted that the move to hijack a name it had used to transact business internationally for over 22 years before the CBN decided to appropriate it, amounted to a breach of its rights.
While adopting his brief of argument, counsel to the plaintiff, Mr. David Ityonyman, argued that the source of the name “Naira” is a community in India.
“Nothing stops India from having a Naira. Also, countries like the U.S. and Canada make use of dollars. None of them has laid claim to the name.
“The plaintiff had used the name ‘Naira’ for a long time and enjoyed substantial goodwill before 2021, when the defendant sought to take over the name,” Ityonyman submitted before the court.