By Olukayode Idowu
The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS on 12 May 2025 delivered its judgment in Case No ECW/CCJ/APP/25/24 concerning alleged property rights violation, specifically, breach of intellectual property rights. However, the Court dismissed all claims of rights violation considering that there was no deprivation of property or unlawful control of another’s property.
Case background
The Applicants – Mr Solomon Ekolama, a Nigerian and registered Engineer suing alongside a company registered in Nigeria – Far-Reaching Technologies claimed they developed a security software for crime management which was registered and certified by an agent of the Respondent – The Federal Government of Nigeria, in 2016. They averred that they submitted a copy to the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) an agency of the Respondent, after which both parties held series of meetings and presentations that enabled access to their intellectual property.
They argued that NITDA published an identical software application on Google Playstore under a different name. They added that the functionality and administrative procedure of the Respondents’ application is a direct copy of their creation, accusing the Respondent of violating their right to property, theft of software application and invasion and infringement of their right to property.
The Applicants concluded that the Respondent was liable for intellectual property theft resulting in unquantifiable loss to them. They notified the Respondent of its breach of intellectual property rights on 14 August 2019.
The Respondent – Federal Republic of Nigeria denied the claims of the Applicants adding that the efforts and expenses incurred in the development of the software were done “within the freewill and pleasure of the Applicants.
Although the Respondent admitted the software was registered and certified by its agency, it argued that it did not contract the Applicants to produce or design a software and that it does not award contracts except through a procurement process in line with its Public Procurement Act. It added that the security number of its application differs from that of the Applicants’ and that the matter was premised on allegation of intellectual property theft which falls within the competence of national courts. Consequently, the Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the case in its entirety.
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that:
· The Applicants relied on Article 14 of the African Charter (ACHPR), Article 26 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Work and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty as well as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
· In accordance with Article 9(4) of its Supplementary Protocol, it could determine the matter as it relates to Article 14 of the ACHPR and Article 26 of the ICCPR but that the Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Work and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty were body of laws outside its areas of competence.
· The Applicants’ submissions under Sections 42 and 43 of the Constitution of Nigeria were ineffective as the Court lacks competence to examine laws of Member States or review decisions of national courts.
· The Application meets the requirements for admissibility under Article 10(d) of the Supplementary Protocol.
· The Applicants’ claims and evidence suggest a theft of their propriety interest which is a crime and not violation of right to property, and contrary to the civil character of the Court.
· The Applicants still possessed ownership of their software creation and no unlawful control has been exercised by the Respondent. Therefore, there was no breach of Article 14 of the ACHPR.
· On the right to equality under Article 26 of the ICCPR, the Applicants made no credible submissions.
Court Decision
The Court:
· Declared it had jurisdiction to determine the matter.
· Declared the matter was admissible in relation to Article 14 of the ACHPR and Article 26 of the ICCPR.
· Dismissed all claims for violations of rights including right to property and right to equality before the law.
· Ordered the Respondent to bear the costs.
Judicial Panel
The judgment was rendered by a panel comprising:
§ Hon. Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Presiding Judge and Judge Rapporteur)
§ Hon. Justice Gberi-Bè Ouattara (Member)
§ Hon. Justice Edward Amoako Asante (Member)
