By Innocent Anaba
LAGOS —A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has encouraged parties in a high-stakes N98.5 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 trial.
The trial judge, Justice Deinde Dipeolu, declined to commence the 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 N98.5 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 the proceedings, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, appeared for the plaintiffs, 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 CBN, 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 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 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 CBN 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.
He further argued that once deployed, the plaintiffs’ cash management solution would significantly improve Nigeria’s cash management system and benefit the nation’s economy.
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 toward resolving 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.
