N98.5bn patent suit: Court directs CBN, NIBSS, others to explore settlement

A Federal High Court in Lagos has directed parties involved in a significant patent infringement lawsuit, valued at N98.5 billion, to pursue an amicable settlement. The case, brought by Enterprise Logistics Speciale Limited and its Managing Director, Samuel Kolajo, alleges infringement of their patented cash management technology and breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

“

The judge also drew the attention of counsel to the provisions of the Federal High Court Act empowering courts to promote amicable resolution of disputes and urged the parties to genuinely explore settlement.

The plaintiffs claim damages for the alleged refusal to deploy their solution on Nigeria’s national payment infrastructure. During the proceedings, the court observed the absence of legal representation for several defendants, including the Central Bank of Nigeria and Avanage Nigeria Limited. Justice Deinde Dipeolu postponed the hearing, mandating that hearing notices be served on the absent parties.

“

the payment system operator functions strictly under the regulatory oversight of the CBN and lacks the authority to take unilateral decisions.

Counsel for Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System Plc (NIBSS) argued that the organization operates under the Central Bank's oversight and cannot make unilateral decisions. NIBSS also expressed opposition to creating a monopoly, suggesting it was central to the dispute. Conversely, the plaintiffs' lawyer defended their claims, emphasizing the substantial investment in their patented inventions and their right to exclusive enjoyment.

“

NIBSS was opposed to creating a monopoly, which he suggested lay at the heart of the dispute between the parties.

Justice Dipeolu encouraged genuine settlement discussions, referencing the Federal High Court Act's provisions for dispute resolution. The court has adjourned the case to October 15 and 16, 2026, to allow parties to engage in meaningful out-of-court negotiations.

“

they invested heavily in developing their patented inventions, which the defendants were allegedly attempting to infringe.