By Nduka Chiejina and Eric Ikhilae, Abuja
The scheduled hearing before the Federal High Court in Abuja in a suit challenging the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN’s) right to the e-naira concept was stalled yesterday owing to the absence of the lawyer to the plaintiff – ENaira Payment Solutions Limited.
At the mention of the case, the plaintiff was not represented, but the defendant, the CBN was represented by a legal team led by Damian Dodo (SAN).
On realising that the plaintiff was unrepresented, the defendant’s lawyer applied that an ex-parte application filed by the plaintiff be struck out, a request Justice Taiwo Taiwo rejected.
The judge noted that since the hearing fixed for Thursday was scheduled by the court, it was possible the plaintiff and its lawyer were not served with hearing and became unaware of the day’s proceedings.
Justice Taiwo then adjourned further proceedings till October 11.
But, the CBN, in a statement, said the court okayed its planned launch of its e-naira initiative on October 1.
The statement reads: “ENaira Payment Solutions Limited v. Central Bank of Nigeria (FHC/ABJ/CS/113/2021) came up today, Thursday, September 30, 2021, at the Federal High Court 8, Abuja presided over by Justice Taiwo Obayomi Taiwo.
“The principal counsel, D. D. Dodo SAN led the team for the defendant. CBN counsel urged the court to strike out the plaintiff’s motion ex-parte seeking to restrain the launch of the defendant’s digital currency in view of its significance to the nation’s economic advancement.
”The court was not disposed to striking out the plaintiff’s motion ex-parte but was of the view that the launch of the digital currency should go ahead in the nation’s interest and the economic advancement of the country, especially as the plaintiff can be adequately compensated in damages.
Read Also: CBN places N1m limit on eNaira single transaction
”The matter was adjourned to 11th October, 2021 for further hearing.”
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Olakunle Agbebi of the firm of Olakunle Agbebi & Co had, before Thursday, issued a statement, claiming that his client has sued the CBN, accusing apex bank of of trademark infringement.
Part of the statement reads: “”We are Solicitors to Enaira Payment Solutions Limited (RC 508500) which was incorporated on the 7th of April, 2004. Our client is and remains a valid and existing legal entity having complied with the statutory requirements as regards the filing of its annual returns and the payment of company income tax,” the document read.
“Our client is the holder of the trademark “ENaira” registered in Class 36 and Class 42. It has come to our client’s notice that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has announced the planning launching of a financial under what it termed its Central Bank Digital Currency to be known as “eNaira”.
“This action amounts to a threat to willfully infringe on our client’s Trademark. It will also amount to a violation of its corporate name i.e. ENaira Payment Solutions Ltd. The ramifications of this illegal act of the CBN are extensive.
“Importantly, the potential this has to deceive the general public into believing that this product emanated from our client’s company is real and the consequences for our client are grave. The potential to expose our client to all manner of damage, loss of business and loss of goodwill is also very real.
“For this reason, our client has approached the federal high court in suit No. FHC/AB/CS/113/2021 between ENaira Rayment Solutions Limited v Central Bank of Nigeria to seek restraining orders, including an order to restrain the CBN from proceeding with the proposed launching on the 1st of October 2021.
“The CBN is hereby put on notice of the pendency of this suit and advised not to resort to self-help or present the honourable court with a fait accompli by proceeding with the proposed launching pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
“In the interim, the CBN is hereby warned to cease and desist from using or purporting to use the name “eNaira” for its product or in any way, form or manner infringing or threatening to infringe on our client’s Trademark or violating our client’s corporate name.”
Leave a Reply