Unauthorised Use Of Photos: Court Fixes April 22 For Judgment
A Federal High Court in Lagos Tuesday, fixed April 22, for Judgment in a suit filed by a Lagos-based trader, Mrs Amudat Adeleke, against former Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki over alleged unauthorised use of her picture on campaign billboards.
Saraki was the Director-General of the Atiku Abubakar Campaign Organisation for the 2019 General Elections. Also joined in the suit FHC/L/CS/193/19, are the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Abubakar who was the party’s presidential flag bearer, and his running mate, Mr Peter Obi.
Amudat, in the suit filed by her counsel, Mr Kingsley Iheakaram, is claiming N45 million from the respondents, jointly and severally as compensation for unlawful, unauthorised and unconstitutional use of her image for campaign.
She averred that her image was displayed in strategic places in Lagos like Onikan, Costain, Akpongbon, Airport Road, WAEC in Yaba, Illupeju and Ikorodu areas of Lagos.
The applicant is seeking an order, of court, directing the immediate withdrawal and destruction of the campaign materials containing her images anywhere within and outside Nigeria.
She is also seeking a declaration that the alleged unauthorised use, publication and display of her image as an advertisement by the respondents as well as its Presidential Campaign Organisation, constitutes an infringement on her fundamental right to privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution.
On Tuesday, counsel to the applicant, (Iheakaram) moved his motion after obtaining leave of court to regularise his processes.
He urged the court to grant the prayers sought, as the images of the applicant used, depicted her as poverty-stricken, and violates her fundamental rights.
He adopted his processes and urged the court to find in his favour.
In response, respondent counsel, Mr Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, also informed the court of his counter-affidavit in opposition to the suit.
He argued that the nature of the claim as sort by the applicant could not come under the ambit of a fundamental rights enforcement procedure.
He also argued that the claim could at most be a tortuous one, for which evidences will be adduced and witnesses called.
Besides, Jegede argued that the applicant openly and willingly posed for the photographs, and had also openly declared her support for the candidates, alongside other market traders.
He argued that having openly made such open declaration, she cannot now turn around to allege a breach of her fundamental rights.
Eyitayo argued that the applicant is not even known to the third and fourth respondents, adding that this fact has not been controverted by the applicant.
He consequently urged the court to dismiss the suit.
In his reply, applicant counsel maintained that the applicant’s suit is properly brought under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure.
According to him, “No matter how eloquent the argument of counsel appeared in court, it cannot take the place of evidence placed before the court.”
He urged the court to be persuaded by the evidence placed before the court, and grant the reliefs sought.
After listening to parties, Justice Ayokunke Faji adjourned the case until May 22 for Judgement.
