Copyright: Court Dismisses N500m Suit Against KCEE, E-Money

Justice Kehinde Ogundare of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday dismissed a N500 million suit filed by a prominent Catholic music composer, Sir Jude Nnam, against gospel singer Kingsley Okonkwo, popularly known as KCEE, over allegations of copyright infringement.

Justice Ogundare, who held in his judgment that Nnam failed to prove the alleged infringement of his copyright work, “Som Too Chukwu”, also awarded a punitive cost of N1 million against him.

The plaintiff had joined Five Star Music Limited and Emeka Okonkwo E-Money in the suit.

Nnam had asked the court for a declaration that the copyright, as well as the ownership rights to the song titled ‘Som Too Chukwu’ which was secretly included in the music album titled “Cultural Praise Vol.1” by the third Defendant without his consent or authorisation, is vested in him by his composing the said song in 2001.

While dismissing the suit, Justice Ogundare held that the claimant is not entitled to any damages as claimed in his originating process, having failed to prove that he has a copyright and that he is the original owner of the phrase “Some Too Chukwu”, a phrase the third defendant said was inspired by reading the book of Psalms in the Holy Bible.

The plaintiff had also urged the court for an order of the court directing the defendants to pay all the royalties accruing from the musical works titled ‘Som Too Chukwu, Otito Diri Chineke’’ and ‘K’ Anyi Jee N’’ Ulo Chukwu’ from December 2020 to HIM, and a perpetual injunction restraining, preventing and or prohibiting the defendants from further infringing on the copyright of the Plaintiff to the songs titled ‘Som Too Chukwu, Otito Diri Chineke’ and ‘K’ Anyi Jee N’ Ulo Chukwu’ by any means howsoever.

Nnam had further demanded general damages in the sum of N500,000,000 against the defendants for the infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright.

He had also asked the judge for “An order directing the defendants to render account of the income, profit and benefits generated from the adaptation, production, distribution, sale, advertisement, marketing and performance of the song “Som Too Chukwu, Otito Diri hi Ikea d ‘K’ Anyi Jeen’ Ulo Chukwu” from December 2020 till judgement.

“And the sum of N5,000,000 (five million naira) as the cost of this action.

However, the defendants, in their state of defence, stated that “the first defendant, Five Star Music Limited, is an outstanding record label company in Nigeria and duly incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In contrast, the third defendant, KCEE, is an award-winning international artiste with twenty-four (24) years of professional experience in the music industry and over ten albums as well as over 50 singles to his credit.

Defendants also stated that KCEEparents, Pastor Gabriel Okonkwo (now deceased) and Mrs Martha Okonkwo, were devoted Catholics.

Consequently, the third defendant, KCEE, was born and raised in the Catholic Church and within the Catholic tradition. “As evidence of his devotion, KCEEwas at the age of thirteen (13) years nominated as a Mass Servant for several years, and during this period, he served.

The defendants added that he did not at any time produce any musical work or songs titled ‘Som Too Chukwu’ or ‘K’ Anyi Jee N’LO Chukwu, which the plaintiff alleged, adding that the said phrases were from the Holy Bible (the book of Psalms) this, KCEEsaid the claimant does not have copyright over.

The defendants added that the beat, rhythm, and music do not resemble any of the claimant’s music, if there any.

The defendants in their defence further stated that the phrase “Som Too Chukwu” Or K’ Anyi Jee Nulo Chukwu in the work titled ‘Cultural Praise Vol 1 to 4’ does not have any semblance with any work of the plaintiff as they are phrases from the Holy Bible.

It was further stated that the Plaintiff is not a known artiste either in Nigeria or elsewhere, that his purported song titled, “Som Too Chukwu” is not subsisting on any website attributed to KCEEand that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages as alleged or at all.

Defendants also averred that the plaintiff’s claim constituted an attempt to extort the defendants which they said amounted to gold-digging, frivolous, and vexatious and should be dismissed with substantial costs.