A fresh dust has been raised in the aviation industry with last week’s damage to two billboards belonging to Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited (BASL) at the Murtala Muhammed Airport Terminal Two (MMA2) by the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN).
The damage occurred without a prior notice by FAAN, according to BASL.
The organisation has a court judgement restraining FAAN from tampering with any of its adverts.
But officials of the government agency, with heavily-armed policemen, allegedly stormed the pedestrian overhead bridge connecting the MMA2 multi-storey car park (MSCP) with an unmarked truck and vandalised Bi-Courtney’s billboard on the bridge, creating serious disruption of traffic on Airport Road.
FAAN said it ordered the removal of all illegal advertisement materials on billboards and structures on Murtala Muhammed Airport Road in Lagos.
According to its General Manager, Corporate Communication, Mr. Yakubu Dati, the placement of such advert materials infringes on advertisement rights of FAAN.
He said this is because the company or organisation liable for the placing of the advert materials did not receive FAAN’s permission to do so.
“Every advert placement within the airport premises, including the internal and access roads must be done with the authorisation of FAAN, which has the right over all airport land as contained in the act establishing the Authority,” Dati said.
Bi-Courtney had sued FAAN and its Managing Director before Justice Stephen Jonah Adah of the Federal High Court in 2010.
The company is seeking, among others: “A declaration that the defendants are not entitled to unilaterally remove, pull down, destroy, dismantle and/or interfere with the adverts placed on the plaintiff’s overhead pedestrian bridge at its terminal in the MMA2, without first referring same to the dispute resolution mechanisms set up under Article 22 of the Concession Agreement dated 24th April, 2003.
“A declaration that any act of the Defendants by which it seeks to unilaterally remove, destroy, dismantle and/or interfere with or otherwise cause the removal, destruction, dismantling and/or interfere with the adverts placed on the plaintiff’s overhead pedestrian bridge at its Terminal in the MMA2, by self-help and without recourse to the Concession Agreement dated 24th April, 2003 and ultra vires the Federal Airports Authority Act, Cap F5 LFN 2004.
The originating summons was supported by 11 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Olabayo Oluwabukunola, a legal officer of the plaintiff.
But, FAAN in its preliminary objection to the suit, contended that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it, or that the matter be “stayed pending the resolution of the matter via dispute resolution mechanism provided in the Concession Agreement”.
However, in his judgement of November 15, last year, Justice Adah granted Bi-Courtney’s prayer by restraining FAAN from tampering with the company’s advert on the overhead bridge.
Reacting to the destruction of the billboards, Dati said: “Every advert placement within the airport premises, including the internal and access roads, must be done with the authorisation of FAAN, which has the right over all airport land as contained in the Act estabilishing the authority.”
Contrary to the argument, Bi-Courtney, however, said it did not need FAAN’s permission before putting its adverts on the structures at MMA2.
Head of Litigation, Bi-Courtney Limited, Tola Oshobi, explained further: “I want to say that we do need any permission from FAAN. The matter has already been settled by Justice Stephen Jonah Adah of the Federal High Court, Ikeja Division, in November 2011.
“By virtue of the concession agreement we have with FAAN and the lease agreement on the hotel project, we do not require any permission from the agency or any other government agency to place adverts on both the bridge and our ongoing hotel/conference centre projects. Justice Adah had granted the relief we sought in the suit we instituted against FAAN and its Managing Director in the Federal High Court.”