Offset Communications Advisory Ltd has dragged Qore Technologies Ltd before a Federal High Court in Lagos, demanding the sum of N50 million as damages for the alleged infringement of its copyright.

Pic credit….https://copyrightalliance.org

Offset, in the suit marked: FHC/L/CS/1994/2025, is claiming that Qore used content from a proposal it submitted in December 2022, without formal engagement, attribution, or a licensing agreement.

“The Defendant’s execution of the content of the proposal submitted to it by the Plaintiff without any formal engagement, attribution or a licensing arrangement… amounts to an infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright,” Offset stated in its writ of summon.

The suit filed on September 29, 2025, by Jimoh Bamigbola and Omobolaji Idris, on behalf of the plaintiff has Qore as sole defendant.

Plaintiff, a Lagos-based communications firm, in its statement of claim said it a had previously worked with Qore on Public Relations (PR) projects and was later asked to prepare a communications strategy for the company, adding that the said proposal contained ideas on employee engagement, branding, and stakeholder management.

Offset however, alleged that Qore implemented elements of the proposal, including internal communication initiatives and branding concepts, without payment or agreement.

“The Defendant executed and integrated the propositions into its Public Relations and Communication Strategy without any formal engagement… with the Plaintiff,” the statement of claim read.

The plaintiff said it discovered the alleged infringement in April 2025 and subsequently notified the defendant, but efforts to resolve the dispute failed.

It is seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the defendant’s actions amount to copyright infringement, N50 million in general damages, N5 million in litigation costs, 29 percent post-judgment interest, and “an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendant… from further infringing on the Plaintiff’s copyright.”

Qore Technologies, however, denied the allegations in its statement of defence, arguing that the plaintiff was only engaged for limited Public Relations support services on a project basis and was paid for those services.

“The Plaintiff merely provided routine and secondary Public Relations support services… for which the Plaintiff was remunerated,” the defendant stated.

Qore further argued that the ideas referenced by the plaintiff are not protected under copyright law.

“The alleged ‘ideas’… consist of generic corporate communication practices widely used by companies… and cannot constitute original copyrightable works under Nigerian law,” it said.

The company also maintained that no binding agreement existed regarding the proposal and that its branding and communication strategies were developed internally and by its consultants.

In addition, Qore challenged the competence of the suit, stating that “the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action” and that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The defendant also filed a counterclaim, seeking N6.35 million as reimbursement for legal fees incurred in defending the suit, as well as N2 million in costs.

At the hearing on March 23, 2026, counsel to the parties identified their processes, and the court adjourned the matter to June 22, 2026, for further proceedings.

The case is expected to test the boundaries of copyright protection in Nigeria’s Communications and Public Relations industry, particularly regarding the ownership of proposals and business ideas.

Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) has said that compensation of subscribers for poor service quality, such as persistent network outages or failed calls is automatic.

This initiative aims to ensure fairness by mandating that operators provide automatic compensation, such as airtime credits, for failing to meet regulatory Quality of Service Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

According to the NCC, operators are required and mandated to identify affected subscribers and provide compensation directly.

In a framework for compensation of consumers published on its website, NCC said that it has directed Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) to compensate subscribers affected by prolonged or repeated poor quality of service experience within specific Local Government Areas where operators fail to meet regulatory Quality of Service Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The NCC also stated that the directive does not replace existing consumer protection mechanisms.

The NCC, said the directive adds a direct compensation mechanism for affected subscribers and aligns with measures set in existing legislations such as the Consumer Code of Practice Regulations 2024 and the Quality of Service Regulations 2024.

This directive applies to only Mobile Network Operators licensed and operating in Nigeria that have failed to meet their Key Performance Indicators on Quality of Service. For Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in Nigeria, a compensation framework is already in place.

To be eligible to receive compensation

. You experienced poor network service in an affected Local Government Area; and

• You made at least one outgoing revenue generating event (billed call, SMS, or data session) during the relevant period.

The compensation covers service failures affecting voice, data, or SMS services.

Operators are required and mandated by existing regulations to monitor their network performance across locations and service disruptions against Quality of Service KPIs.

This enables them to identify affected subscribers without the need for individual complaints.

Only service failures that fall below the defined thresholds set by the Quality of Service Regulations issued by the NCC will qualify for compensation.

Short, isolated interruptions and immediately remedied interruptions may not qualify

Compensation will be provided in the form of airtime credits.

This airtime credit will not have utilisation restrictions, and subscribers will be able to use it for voice calls, USSD sessions, data subscriptions, etc on the operators’ network.

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) over its failure to investigate an alleged abuse of office in the National Assembly regarding the amendments to the Electoral Act and tax reform laws.

“Public officers hold their offices in trust for the people and must not deploy official power for personal or sectional advantage,” SERAP said in a statement on Sunday.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/634/2026, SERAP is seeking an order of mandamus to compel the CCB to immediately probe lawmakers and executive officials involved in the processes.

SERAP specifically wants the CCB to investigate claims that critical provisions on electronic transmission of election results were secretly removed from the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, as well as alleged discrepancies between the tax reform bills passed by the National Assembly and the versions signed into law.

The group is also asking the CCB to refer any public officers found guilty of violating the Code of Conduct to the Code of Conduct Tribunal for prosecution.

No date has been fixed for the hearing.

The statement reads, “We’re also seeking an order of mandamus to direct and compel @CCBNigeria to probe the allegations that certain lawmakers and officers of the executive branch unlawfully altered some aspects of the tax reform bills, which resulted in differences between the tax laws passed by lawmakers and the gazetted copy available to the public.”

SERAP emphasised that granting the reliefs sought would help address critical concerns relating to conflict of interest, abuse of office, non-disclosure of interests, and reinforce adherence to due process.

The group added that, “It would serve to curb the erosion of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers in the exercise of legislative powers.”

“Where lawmaking is shaped by abuse of office and conflict of interest, it ceases to be a legitimate exercise of constitutional and fiduciary responsibility and becomes a legal and ethical infraction prohibited under the Code of Conduct for Public Officers,” the statement concluded.