IP Battles: Inside 8 Major Intellectual Property Disputes in Nigeria Since 2015
Explore major IP disputes shaping Nigeria’s TMT sector, from music and film to tech and consumer brands, and the legal lessons businesses should learn.
By Rotimi Owolabi · 8 April 2026
For much of Nigeria’s commercial history, IP disputes were largely confined to pharmaceutical counterfeits and pirated CDs sold in open markets. Today, the TMT sector has evolved from a market driven by physical distribution and informal commerce into a digital economy powered by platforms and online services. As music, media, technology, and consumer brands scale, intellectual property has become central not just to creative expression, but to commercial value and business strategy.
The cases below illustrate this transformation, showing how IP is increasingly tested across Nigeria’s TMT ecosystem and how quickly unresolved rights issues can escalate into disputes with material business consequences.
Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN) v. MultiChoice Nigeria (DStv)
The Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria sued MultiChoice for refusing to pay broadcast royalties on musical works aired across DStv and GOtv. MultiChoice argued that MCSN lacked a valid licence from the Nigerian Copyright Commission to collect such fees. The Federal High Court disagreed, ruling in MCSN's favour; the Court of Appeal also upheld this decision. The court awarded MCSN a staggering N5.4 billion in damages.
2Face Idibia v. Blackface Naija — African Queen
For years, Blackface Naija, a founding member of the group Plantashun Boiz alongside 2Face Idibia, publicly alleged that 2Face stole his songs, including the globally recognised "African Queen," without credit or compensation. When Blackface repeated those allegations on a widely circulated podcast in 2018, 2Face filed a N50 million defamation suit at the Ikeja High Court. The underlying dispute was around the authorship of the song during the Plantashun Boiz era. Both parties reportedly reached a private settlement, with the terms of the settlement undisclosed.
Michael Oluwole (Maye) v. Sinach (Way Maker)
Music producer Michael Oluwole claims he contributed materially to the recording, instrumental arrangement, and mixing of Sinach's globally acclaimed 2015 gospel song "Way Maker", which went on to be licensed to hundreds of artists worldwide without any written agreement, credit, or share of the proceeds. Sinach's position is that Oluwole's role was a technical service for which he was paid, and that the sole authorship of the song belongs to her. Oluwole filed a N5 billion suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos, seeking co-ownership recognition, revenue sharing, and a perpetual injunction. The case was adjourned in late 2024 and remains ongoing.
Raconteur Productions / Jude Idada v. Omoni Oboli (Okafor's Law)
Screenwriter Jude Idada claimed that Nollywood actress and producer Omoni Oboli took his screenplay, which was developed after preliminary creative conversations between them in 2014 and produced it as the film "Okafor's Law" without a formal agreement, credit, or payment. The Federal High Court granted two orders on an ex parte basis: an Anton Piller order authorising the seizure of all copies and materials relating to the film, and an interim injunction restraining the premiere and nationwide release of the film. These orders halted the film's premiere at an IMAX cinema in Lagos on March 24, 2017, with an audience already seated inside. The interim orders were lifted six days later, and when the case was finally decided in May 2019, the court sided with Oboli, finding that Idada had not proven copyright ownership sufficiently.
Rite Foods Limited v. Mamuda Beverages Nigeria Limited (Fearless v. Pop Power)
Rite Foods, maker of Fearless Energy Drink, sued Mamuda Beverages in 2025, alleging that its newly launched Pop Power Energy Drink copied Fearless's bottle shape, design, and lion head logo so closely that consumers were already calling it “small Fearless” in the market. The Federal High Court granted interim orders, Mamuda agreed to settle, and a consent judgment was entered in March 2025 requiring Mamuda to modify its packaging and destroy the infringing stock. Rite Foods says Mamuda made only cosmetic changes, which were not enough to eliminate the confusion and filed a fresh N1.6 billion suit in April 2025. Mamuda has argued that the matter has already been settled and cannot be reopened.
Citilink Accesscorp Limited v. MTN Nigeria Communications Limited
Citilink challenged MTN’s use of “MTN WEBPLUS,” alleging infringement of its earlier “WEBPLUS” trademark registered in 2001. The dispute hinged on whether failure to renew a trademark extinguishes rights where the mark remains on the register. MTN argued loss of exclusivity and honest concurrent use; the court disagreed. In March 2025, the Federal High Court held that trademark rights subsist until formally removed from the register, awarding ₦840 million in damages plus interest. The decision reinforces Nigeria’s strict “first-to-file” regime and signals that Procedural defaults do not automatically nullify enforceable rights.
Paystack (Zap) v. Zap Africa
Shortly after Paystack launched its consumer product “Zap,” crypto startup Zap Africa issued a cease-and-desist alleging trademark infringement across overlapping classes. The dispute turns on priority, distinctiveness, and whether “Zap” is protectable or merely descriptive. Zap Africa claims reputational and fundraising harm, while Paystack argues differentiation through branding (“Zap by Paystack”) and the generic nature of the term. As of April 2025, the matter remains unresolved.
Kizz Daniel v. G-Worldwide Entertainment
In 2013, Kizz Daniel entered a seven-year recording and management agreement with G-Worldwide Entertainment, rising to mainstream success under the label. The relationship fractured in 2017 when he exited the deal and launched his own label, Flyboy Entertainment. G-Worldwide responded by obtaining a court injunction that temporarily barred him from performing, enforcing its trademark over the name “Kiss” and filed a N500 Million suit for breach of contract, which compelled the artiste to rebrand to “Kizz Daniel”. After years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement in April 2022.
Closing: Managing IP Risks
These disputes point to operational gaps, most of which are preventable.
First, establish ownership at the point of creation. Any collaborative output, whether music, software or content should be backed by a clear, written allocation of rights. Courts will usually default to what can be proven and not what was informally agreed.
Second, prioritise early and proactive registration. Trademarks, in particular, should be filed before product launch. Incorporation at the CAC does not automatically confer IP protection, and post-launch disputes around IP are usually more disruptive and expensive to resolve.
Third, treat contracts as risk-allocation tools, not just as formalities. Key provisions like termination rights, IP ownership, licensing scope, and usage rights should be interrogated upfront.
Fourth, build internal IP compliance processes. Track licence terms, monitor renewal timelines and ensure that usage does not go beyond agreed rights. Many of the disputes above began with operational oversight.
Fifth, prior to any acquisition, merger, or significant commercial partnership, a structured IP audit covering trademarks, copyrights, software ownership, and content licensing chains should be conducted. These IP audits are intended to surface any undisclosed encumbrances which may not have crystallised into the formal proceedings.
Finally, where there is reason to believe that a product, brand, or creative output may have infringed an existing right, whether through similarity of name or design, that risk should be assessed and addressed before it escalates into a formal dispute. Taking early remedial steps, whether through a licensing arrangement, a design modification, or a direct engagement with the rights holder, is almost always more commercially viable than defending litigation, which is expensive and rarely resolves on the timeline a business needs to keep operating.
This article was produced while listening to ‘I Think They Call This Love’ by Elliot James Reay
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your circumstances, speak with a legal professional.