Energy Drink Tussle: Court Fixes May 28 To Hear Preliminary Objection

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed May 28 to hear the preliminary objection filed by

Mamuda Beverages Nigeria Limited against a suit brought by Rite Foods Limited Limited.

Rite Foods Limited had approached the Court via Writ of Summons filed in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/705/2025 to contest the production of Pop Power Energy Drink, alleging that the drink has striking resemblance with one of its products.

During proceedings on Friday, the court held that it will first hear the preliminary objection to the suit before any other application in the matter.

In its ruling, the court held that due to its decisive nature, the application challenging jurisdiction filed by Mamuda Beverages Nigeria Limited takes precedence over Rite Food Limited’s Motion Ex-Parte.

The court said it will hear and determine the objection before taking any further step in the matter.

The company through its lawyer, Booneyamen Lawal, SAN, filed alongside the Writ, a Motion Ex-Parte seeking preservative Orders pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit filed against the Defendant.

The Motion Ex-parte was slated for hearing on April 23, 2025. However, the Defendant got wind of the application and swiftly presented a Preliminary Objection, challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

In its Preliminary Objection, filed through its lawyer, Mr O.E.B Offiong, SAN, the Defendant complained that Rite Foods Limited had on January 28, 2025, filed a similar suit over the same issue and between the same parties which has already been decided by the court.

It was stated that while not conceding to the allegations levied against it by Rite Foods Limited, Mamuda Beverages Nigeria Limited opted for settlement which was adopted by both parties and entered as Consent Judgment by the Federal High Court on 4th March, 2025.

He said despite the Consent Judgement, the Plaintiff proceeded to file the instant suit against it, submitting that it amounts to abuse of court process, which robs the court of jurisdiction to entertain it.