Judiciary
Court Urges Settlement in ₦98.5bn Patent Suit Against CBN, NIBSS Over Cash Management Technology
A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, presided over by Justice Deinde Dipeolu, has encouraged the parties in a high-stakes ₦98.5 billion patent infringement suit involving Enterprise Logistics Speciale Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System Plc (NIBSS), and Avanage Nigeria Limited to explore an amicable settlement before proceeding with the trial.
Justice Dipeolu declined to commence hearing on Tuesday after observing that the 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendants were not represented by counsel.
The plaintiffs, Enterprise Logistics Speciale Limited and its Managing Director, Samuel Kolajo, are seeking about ₦98.5 billion in damages over the alleged infringement of their patented cash management technology, breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), and losses allegedly arising from the refusal to deploy their cash management solution on Nigeria’s national payment infrastructure.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Tayo Oyetibo appeared for the plaintiffs alongside Jessica Adeola-Ajayi and Esther Bawa, while Olaoluwa Ale-Daniel represented the 2nd defendant, NIBSS. The Central Bank of Nigeria was not represented by counsel.
Oyetibo informed the court that the matter was slated for trial and that the plaintiffs’ witness was present and ready to testify.
However, Justice Dipeolu noted the absence of legal representation for Avanage Nigeria Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and the Registrar of Patents and Designs, and held that hearing notices should first be issued and served on them.
Consequently, in the interest of justice, the court declined to commence the trial and ordered that hearing notices be served on the absent defendants before the next adjourned date.
The judge also drew the attention of counsel to the provisions of the Federal High Court Act empowering courts to promote the amicable resolution of disputes and urged the parties to genuinely explore settlement.
Responding, counsel to NIBSS argued that the payment system operator functions strictly under the regulatory oversight of the Central Bank of Nigeria and lacks the authority to take unilateral decisions.
He further maintained that NIBSS was opposed to creating a monopoly, which he suggested lay at the heart of the dispute between the parties.
In response, Oyetibo defended the plaintiffs’ claims, contending that they invested heavily in developing their patented inventions, which the defendants were allegedly attempting to infringe.
He submitted that the disputed innovations are the intellectual property of the 2nd plaintiff and that the law entitles him to the exclusive enjoyment of the inventions.
The senior advocate further argued that, once deployed, the plaintiffs’ cash management solution would significantly improve Nigeria’s cash management system and benefit the nation’s economy.
According to him, the major obstacle to resolving the dispute is the “selfish interests” of certain individuals in positions of authority, adding that the Nigerian economy has been deprived of the benefits of the plaintiffs’ innovations.
He nevertheless informed the court that the plaintiffs remained willing to negotiate a settlement.
Following submissions by both sides, Justice Dipeolu directed the parties to meet and engage in meaningful discussions on the issues in dispute and make genuine efforts to resolve the matter out of court.
The case was subsequently adjourned until October 15 and 16, 2026, for the commencement of trial should settlement negotiations fail.
In their consequential amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs contended that they developed several innovative cash management technologies beginning in 2011 to modernise Nigeria’s cash handling system and reduce the movement of physical cash within the banking sector.
They stated that the inventions include the Mobile Smart Deposit, Mobile Cash Sorting and Processing Device, the PillarSalt Cash Supply Chain, Cash Recycling and Retail Cash Management Solution, and the PillarSalt Cash and Terminal Management System, all of which are protected by three separate patent certificates issued under the Patents and Designs Act.
The plaintiffs alleged that, after engaging with the defendants and sharing details of their innovations, the Central Bank of Nigeria subsequently introduced the Guidelines for the Registration and Operation of Bank Neutral Cash Hubs (BNCH), which they claim substantially replicate the processes and technologies protected by their patents without their consent or compensation.
They further alleged that the CBN commercialised their patented inventions and failed, in its capacity as regulator, to protect their proprietary rights.
Among the reliefs sought, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare them the exclusive owners of the patented technologies and restrain the defendants from making, deploying, reproducing, or commercially using the inventions without their written consent.
They are also seeking an order compelling NIBSS to activate and allow their PillarSalt Cash Management Solution/Terminal Management System to go live on the Nigeria Central Switch within 30 days.
Additionally, the plaintiffs seek an order nullifying the CBN’s Guidelines for the Registration and Operation of Bank Neutral Cash Hubs (BNCH), which they describe as an unlawful replication of their patented inventions.
Their monetary claims include ₦500 million as general damages for the alleged patent infringement against the 1st and 2nd defendants, ₦200 million against NIBSS for the alleged breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement executed in 2015, and ₦97.8 billion for alleged losses arising from NIBSS’s refusal to integrate and activate the PillarSalt solution on the Nigeria Central Switch since December 2016.
In its amended statement of defence, however, NIBSS denied liability and rejected the plaintiffs’ allegations.
The payment system operator maintained that it neither infringed any patent nor breached the Non-Disclosure Agreement, insisting that it did not refuse to integrate the plaintiffs’ solution. Rather, NIBSS contended that the plaintiffs were seeking exclusive rights that would prevent other operators with similar solutions from accessing the national payment infrastructure, a position it argued would amount to an unlawful restraint of trade and create a monopoly contrary to applicable regulatory guidelines.
The 2nd defendant also maintained that decisions regarding integration onto its infrastructure are subject to regulatory oversight and corporate approval and cannot be taken unilaterally.
Judiciary
Alleged 184.5kg Cocaine: Court Dismisses KC Luxury’s Suit Challenging Detention Order
A Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed an application by Afolabi Michael Kazeem seeking to overturn an order extending his detention for 30 days over his alleged involvement in the trafficking of 184.5 kilogrammes of cocaine.
The court held that the detention extension order granted on August 20, 2026, was properly issued and backed by the Constitution and relevant drug-control laws.
Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, through his lawyer, Abdulakeem Labi-Lawal, SAN, had asked the court to set aside or strike out the order, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend his detention.
The lawyer contended that only a Magistrate Court could issue a remand order under Sections 293 to 299 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, describing the detention extension as an unlawful interference with the suspect’s constitutional right to personal liberty.
However, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), through its lawyer, Abu Ibrahim, dismissed the argument as a misconception of the nature of the order granted by the court.
Abu maintained that the August 20 order was not a remand order under the ACJA but an extension of detention granted to enable the relevant agency to conduct detailed investigations into the alleged drug-trafficking offence.
According to the ruling, Kazeem was arrested on August 13, 2026, at the departure hall of the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos, while allegedly attempting to travel to Paris, France.
The NDLEA had told the court that the suspect’s arrest followed the seizure of 184.5kg of cocaine at DHL in Ikeja, Lagos, with the agency alleging that Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, was connected to the shipment.
Delivering judgment on the application on Thursday, Justice Aluko held that Sections 293 to 299 of the ACJA, which deal with remand proceedings, were not applicable to the case before the court.
The judge also held that the court has “exclusive” jurisdiction over drug-related matters by virtue of Section 251(1)(m) of the Constitution and Section 26(1) of the NDLEA Act.
The judge further held that the evidence presented by the NDLEA established reasonable suspicion of a drug-related offence, justifying the temporary deprivation of liberty under Section 35 of the Constitution.
Justice Aluko consequently dismissed KC Luxury’s application, holding that it constituted an abuse of court process and lacked merit.
Article
POLITICS AND LAWYERS: PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH – JUSTICE TAIWO (RTD.)
I am a lawyer. I studied law and have remained in the practice of law in memory of my late mother, who paid for me to study law at Holborn Law Tutors in the UK. I eventually continued my legal education at the University of Ibadan and graduated from there. She paid almost £7,000 upfront for one year, which was the total tuition fee for one year at that private law school. I will be eternally grateful to her. May her soul continue to rest in perfect peace. We all know what the exchange rate would be today.
In her memory, I decided to remain in the practice of law throughout my legal practice and thereafter, even until now. I tried my hand at property marketing at one time, but I had to drop it, even though I made some money from it. I stopped because it was affecting my legal practice.
There is nothing you do, from my point of view, outside your profession that will not affect your profession. Politics is one of them. Politics itself is an art and a profession, but I must add that, if it is truly for the people and the betterment of the people, it is a good one.
One of the most respected politicians in this country was Chief Obafemi Awolowo, of blessed memory. He practised law and politics successfully, but he was more of a politician. He used his knowledge of law to better the lot of so many people during his lifetime, and, till today, his name remains a reference point in using politics to serve humanity.
Mahatma Gandhi was first a lawyer before he became a politician to serve his people. His name is known more in politics than in law.
Chief F.R.A. Williams was a politician until he dropped politics to devote his entire life to law. He was not a crossbreed. His pathological devotion to law can be seen and read in the political history of Nigeria. In legal practice, to which he committed his entire life after publicly renouncing politics, his invaluable impact is evident in law books, legal records and law reports. He was an enigma and an icon who will forever be remembered, like others too numerous to name, who stayed in the service of law.
The lawyer is meant to be the beacon of society. The lawyer’s creed is to ensure that society is governed according to the law. Chief Gani Fawehinmi was the people’s lawyer. He used the law to better the lot of society. His foray into politics was disastrous because the perception of the lawyer in practice and the lawyer in politics are not symbiotic. They are strange bedfellows.
The people may hail the lawyer in law, but not the lawyer in politics. The ingredients you add to the soup that make a lawyer are different from the ingredients you add to the soup that make a politician. Femi Falana, SAN, my dear friend, was in the same boat as the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi. I feel him more in law now than when he did both.
A lawyer is known to keep to his or her word. Robert Traver, in his book The Anatomy of Murder, stated thus:
“That’s what makes the practice of law, like prostitution, one of the last of the unpredictable professions—both employ the seductive arts, both try to display their wares to best advantage and both must pretend enthusiastically to woo total strangers.”
Joseph Story lived from 1779 to 1845. He was an American lawyer, politician and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1812 until his death in 1845. He stated thus:
“I will not say….that ‘The law will admit of no rival’, but I will say that it is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship. It is not to be won by trifling favours…”
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862) was not a lawyer. He was an American essayist, poet and philosopher. He said:
“The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency, or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrongdoing.”
I have gone through the lawyer’s creed, which is to uphold the rule of law, personal dignity and independence; to offer faithfulness, competence, diligence and good judgment while providing vigorous and honest representation without sacrificing professional ethics; to practise with fairness, integrity and civility, avoiding malicious tactics, unnecessary delays or abusive discovery; to show profound respect, candour and courtesy, ensuring that the search for truth and justice remains uncompromised; to the court or tribunal; to make justice accessible to the poor; and to protect the legal profession as a noble calling rather than a mere business.
I have gone this far in order to buttress the topic for discussion. The practice of law and politics can never converge. You cannot be a master of both. You can be successful in both, no doubt, but along the way, there are sacrifices that will most likely be at cross-purposes with the law.
Very few lawyers, like Chief F.R.A. Williams, of blessed memory, have sacrificed politics for law. The political lawyer will criticise anything, even when the law is clear that, without evidence, you are not expected to speculate.
Nowadays, many lawyers in politics take to the airwaves and the print media, especially in this era of social media, to generalise when making statements. How can a lawyer, trained in the practice of law, make general statements on any topic, especially these days when the judiciary, even in retirement, has become a topic for discussion without any evidence? How can people make general statements about Senior Advocates of Nigeria or lawyers generally?
It is pathetic that those who ought to know, by virtue of their level of education, professional qualifications and recognition in the legal community, are more guilty of this. How can a lawyer remain silent even when injustice happens in front of him and behind him, too, but he keeps quiet?
Many keep quiet these days because they want to satisfy their paymasters, even when it is glaring that the legal profession is suffering from their silence and/or complicity and complacency. These days, many voice personal opinions without let or hindrance for personal and political reasons. Some attack their professional colleagues, even the judiciary, when they cannot get what they want, but they must vent their anger on someone. Some are paid to attack or bring down their fellow colleagues, whether at the Bar or on the Bench.
I like the Yoruba language a lot. I am sorry I will not be able to interpret the idioms I will use:
“Tó bá máa jẹ Oshakala, jẹ Oshakala; tó bá máa jẹ Oshokolo, jẹ Oshokolo. Oshakala, Oshokolo kò yẹ ọmọ ènìyàn.”
“Arítení mo ń wí, àfi àpáàdì bó tiẹ̀ mọ́lẹ̀.”
“Kò sí ẹni tí a máa sí idi ẹ̀, tí a kò ní bá ẹ̀ẹ̀pà níbẹ̀.”
Apologies to those who will read this who are not Yoruba, or those who are Yoruba but do not understand these idioms.
To those who criticise, not out of holiness per se, not out of being a “straight” lawyer or simply out of a desire to be fair, but generalise in order to look good or elicit unmerited applause, look in the mirror and think back to whether you have not done anything you accuse others of doing.
In writing or criticising generally, come out, but most importantly, PRACTISE WHAT YOU PREACH BEFORE YOU CRITICISE.
Judiciary
Appeal Court Affirms Ex-NEXIM Bank MD Orya’s 490-Year Jail Term for ₦2.4bn Fraud
-
Health1 year ago
Nigerian nurses stage seven‑day warning strike over pay, staffing
-
Energy1 year agoDangote Refinery to deploy 4,000 gas‑powered trucks for distribution
-
Economy1 year agoNigeria approves plan to refinance ₦4tn power-sector debt
-
Education1 year agoJAMB sets 2025/26 university cut‑off at 150, bars under‑16
-
Entertainment1 year agoSean Kingston sentenced to 3½ years in prison over $1 million fraud
-
Crime & Justice7 months agoBREAKING: Two Chinese Directors Jailed 46 Years Each Over ₦3.4bn, $2.5m Crypto Fraud in Lagos
-
Business7 months agoNigeria Revenue Service Collects ₦28.3trn in 2025, Sets ₦40.7trn Target for 2026
-
Crime & Justice8 months agoPolice Arrest 24-Year-Old Over ₦48.5m Romance Fraud in Lagos
