Lagos court to hear N20m suit against NIMN
Justice Taiwo Olatokun of the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja will, on May 27, 2024, hear the N20m suit filed by Marketing Edge Publications Limited against the National Institute of Marketing of Nigeria.
The suit, marked ID/10977GCMN/2024, also named the institute’s president, Idorenyen Enang, as a respondent.
Filed through the firm’s lawyer, Felix Akinsola, the claimant sought a perpetual injunction against the first respondent and its officers, restraining them from further threats and harassment of any form, either through the use of the Nigerian Police Force or any other security agencies.
It also asked the court for “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the second respondent either by himself, his officers, any person acting for and on his behalf or through any office he may occupy, either now or at any time in future, from further threat and harassment of any form and publishing and or making libellous and defamatory statements towards the claimant and or any person, natural or non-natural associated with it.”
The claimant further sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the first respondent, its officers, and other persons acting for and on behalf of the respondents from continuing with the alleged libellous publication.
Additionally, the claimant demanded N20m as damages for assault on its reputation and a retraction in its entirety of the alleged defamatory statements made by the institute in a public notice made by the National Institute of Marketing of Nigeria in The PUNCH of Friday, November 24, 2023.
The claimant also asked for an apology by the institute, to be published in four national dailies, stating unequivocally that “the claimant is not in breach of any laws in its ordinary course of business, and that the claimant is well within its right to carry on its business and that the general public, companies, corporations and individuals are free to relate and contract with the claimant without hesitation and or fear of any kind.”
It asked the court that the first respondent should also state in the apology that the claimant “is an upstanding and respected corporate body carrying on business within the ambit of its objectives.”
In its 36-point statement of claim, the claimant averred that the institute, by the publication, had embarked on a witch-hunt with a determination to undermine the efforts and reputation of the claimant to discredit and harm its reputation.
