A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, presided over by Justice Deinde Dipeolu, has encouraged the parties in a high-stakes ₦98.5 billion patent infringement suit involving Enterprise Logistics Speciale Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System Plc (NIBSS), and Avanage Nigeria Limited to explore an amicable settlement before proceeding with the trial.
Justice Dipeolu declined to commence hearing on Tuesday after observing that the 1st, 3rd, and 4th defendants were not represented by counsel.
The plaintiffs, Enterprise Logistics Speciale Limited and its Managing Director, Samuel Kolajo, are seeking about ₦98.5 billion in damages over the alleged infringement of their patented cash management technology, breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), and losses allegedly arising from the refusal to deploy their cash management solution on Nigeria’s national payment infrastructure.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Tayo Oyetibo appeared for the plaintiffs alongside Jessica Adeola-Ajayi and Esther Bawa, while Olaoluwa Ale-Daniel represented the 2nd defendant, NIBSS. The Central Bank of Nigeria was not represented by counsel.
Oyetibo informed the court that the matter was slated for trial and that the plaintiffs’ witness was present and ready to testify.
However, Justice Dipeolu noted the absence of legal representation for Avanage Nigeria Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and the Registrar of Patents and Designs, and held that hearing notices should first be issued and served on them.
Consequently, in the interest of justice, the court declined to commence the trial and ordered that hearing notices be served on the absent defendants before the next adjourned date.
The judge also drew the attention of counsel to the provisions of the Federal High Court Act empowering courts to promote the amicable resolution of disputes and urged the parties to genuinely explore settlement.
Responding, counsel to NIBSS argued that the payment system operator functions strictly under the regulatory oversight of the Central Bank of Nigeria and lacks the authority to take unilateral decisions.
He further maintained that NIBSS was opposed to creating a monopoly, which he suggested lay at the heart of the dispute between the parties.
In response, Oyetibo defended the plaintiffs’ claims, contending that they invested heavily in developing their patented inventions, which the defendants were allegedly attempting to infringe.
He submitted that the disputed innovations are the intellectual property of the 2nd plaintiff and that the law entitles him to the exclusive enjoyment of the inventions.
The senior advocate further argued that, once deployed, the plaintiffs’ cash management solution would significantly improve Nigeria’s cash management system and benefit the nation’s economy.
According to him, the major obstacle to resolving the dispute is the “selfish interests” of certain individuals in positions of authority, adding that the Nigerian economy has been deprived of the benefits of the plaintiffs’ innovations.
He nevertheless informed the court that the plaintiffs remained willing to negotiate a settlement.
Following submissions by both sides, Justice Dipeolu directed the parties to meet and engage in meaningful discussions on the issues in dispute and make genuine efforts to resolve the matter out of court.
The case was subsequently adjourned until October 15 and 16, 2026, for the commencement of trial should settlement negotiations fail.
In their consequential amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs contended that they developed several innovative cash management technologies beginning in 2011 to modernise Nigeria’s cash handling system and reduce the movement of physical cash within the banking sector.
They stated that the inventions include the Mobile Smart Deposit, Mobile Cash Sorting and Processing Device, the PillarSalt Cash Supply Chain, Cash Recycling and Retail Cash Management Solution, and the PillarSalt Cash and Terminal Management System, all of which are protected by three separate patent certificates issued under the Patents and Designs Act.
The plaintiffs alleged that, after engaging with the defendants and sharing details of their innovations, the Central Bank of Nigeria subsequently introduced the Guidelines for the Registration and Operation of Bank Neutral Cash Hubs (BNCH), which they claim substantially replicate the processes and technologies protected by their patents without their consent or compensation.
They further alleged that the CBN commercialised their patented inventions and failed, in its capacity as regulator, to protect their proprietary rights.
Among the reliefs sought, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare them the exclusive owners of the patented technologies and restrain the defendants from making, deploying, reproducing, or commercially using the inventions without their written consent.
They are also seeking an order compelling NIBSS to activate and allow their PillarSalt Cash Management Solution/Terminal Management System to go live on the Nigeria Central Switch within 30 days.
Additionally, the plaintiffs seek an order nullifying the CBN’s Guidelines for the Registration and Operation of Bank Neutral Cash Hubs (BNCH), which they describe as an unlawful replication of their patented inventions.
Their monetary claims include ₦500 million as general damages for the alleged patent infringement against the 1st and 2nd defendants, ₦200 million against NIBSS for the alleged breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement executed in 2015, and ₦97.8 billion for alleged losses arising from NIBSS’s refusal to integrate and activate the PillarSalt solution on the Nigeria Central Switch since December 2016.
In its amended statement of defence, however, NIBSS denied liability and rejected the plaintiffs’ allegations.
The payment system operator maintained that it neither infringed any patent nor breached the Non-Disclosure Agreement, insisting that it did not refuse to integrate the plaintiffs’ solution. Rather, NIBSS contended that the plaintiffs were seeking exclusive rights that would prevent other operators with similar solutions from accessing the national payment infrastructure, a position it argued would amount to an unlawful restraint of trade and create a monopoly contrary to applicable regulatory guidelines.
The 2nd defendant also maintained that decisions regarding integration onto its infrastructure are subject to regulatory oversight and corporate approval and cannot be taken unilaterally.
