as established. This admitted fact therefore stands as the best evidence
establishing the fact that the respondent, as the plaintiff, “commenced this action
against defendant as the owner/assignee and exclusive licensee of the copyright
including reproduction and public performance rights and also adaptation rights
in the work “OJUMO RE” originally written, composed, arranged, performed
and/or recorded by Alhaji Fatai Olowonyo and contained in the album “DON’T
TOUCH ME”. OKPARAEKE V. EGBUONU (1941).7 W.A.C.A. 53; DIN V. AFRICAN
NEWSPAPERS LTD (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 137) 392 AT 408. The respondent, as the
plaintiff, had thus been relieved of the burden of proving, by virtue of sections125
and 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011, that it commenced the suit against the
appellant, as the defendant, as a party vested with the right “as owner; assignee
and exclusive licensee of Alhaji Fatai Olowonyo’s copyright in the musical work
under the title “OJUMO RE” : AGBANELO V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD(2000)
7 NWLR (PT. 666) 534.
In order to sustain its preliminary objection, on the grounds that the respondent
as the plaintiff lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the action, the
appellant, as the defendant, argued, and the learned trial Judge agreed with him,
that until the respondent (the plaintiff) a corporate body, was licensed as a
collecting society by the Copyright Council pursuant to section 32 B of the
Copyright Act, as amended by Copyright (Amendment) Act 1992, it lacked the
locus standi to institute this suit. Holding further that when the plaintiff lacks the
locus standi to institute and maintain an action, the court lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the action, the learned trial Judge then struck out the suit of the
respondent. The respondent, positing that it did not sue as a collecting society,
but as owner, assignee and exclusive licensee, appealed to the Court of Appeal,
Lagos Division (hereafter called the lower court). The lower court (Coram:
Galadima, Aderemi & Jega, JCA, as they were then) allowed the appeal and set
aside the decision of Ukeje, J (as he then was) that the respondent not being a
collecting society lacked locus standi to institute the action. The lower court, per
Galadima, JCA (as he then was), found that the respondent, the plaintiff, did not
sue as a collecting society and held inter alia that by virtue of section 9, 10and 39
of the Copyright Act, as amended, together with section 15 of the same Act, the