*Says “A Producer, Engineer, Session Musician Or Sound Technician May Contribute Materially To The Finished Product Without Becoming An Author”
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/NBBSPIDEL.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has held that a person who contributes materially to the recording of a musical work does not thereby become its author, dismissing a claim to co-authorship and co-ownership of the widely performed gospel song Way Maker.
Delivering judgment in Micheal Oluwole v Mrs. Osinachi Joseph Egbu (a.k.a. Sinach), Honourable Justice Lewis-Allagoa held that authorship resides in the original creative mind responsible for the intellectual creation of the work, and that the plaintiff’s role had been limited to producing an existing song for an agreed fee.
The plaintiff commenced the action on 8 March 2024 by writ of summons and statement of claim in respect of the musical work titled Way Maker.
The dispute arose out of his involvement in the recording and production of the song. He worked as a studio engineer and provided recording, mixing and mastering services, and also worked on the melodies and parts of several musical instruments used as accompaniments to the defendant’s vocals in the recorded version.
Before his involvement, the defendant had written and composed the song and had performed it in South Africa. She subsequently engaged him to work on the existing song and to provide sound production, mixing and mastering services in connection with its development and recording.
The parties executed no written agreement setting out the terms of the engagement or their respective interests in the work. The arrangement was oral, and payments made to the plaintiff through Slic Inspire Limited comprised N192,000 on 20 October 2015 and N448,000 on 10 December 2015.
A disagreement later arose over the nature and extent of his contribution to, and rights in, the work, and he instituted the action seeking declarations that he was an author and co-owner of Way Maker, an equitable division of the income derived from it, disclosure and accounts of licences and assignments relating to it, N5 billion in general damages, and an injunction restraining further exploitation of the work.
The issue formulated for determination was whether the court could determine that the plaintiff was the author, writer, composer, creator, co-owner and performer of the musical instruments in the work.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Matthew Enilolobo, submitted that the contribution was creative rather than merely technical, arguing that the plaintiff composed the melodies and instrumental parts accompanying the defendant’s vocals and thereby contributed original expression to the musical work.
It was submitted that those who create a musical work are its authors and copyright owners, and that where different persons hold interests in the various copyrights comprising a composite production they are deemed co-owners. On that footing, counsel contended that the work was a composite production comprising the respective contributions of both parties, giving rise to joint authorship and co-ownership.
Counsel further submitted that the engagement went beyond technical mixing and mastering because original musical elements were contributed to the finished work, and that the defendant’s vocals and the plaintiff’s melodies and instrumental accompaniments were distinct but inseparable elements of the work, each party therefore holding an interest in the copyright arising from his or her contribution.
On the payments, counsel argued that payment for services did not, without more, extinguish or transfer the copyright in a creative contribution. There was no written agreement assigning the plaintiff’s interest to the defendant, limiting his role to that of a mixing and mastering engineer, or providing that the payments constituted full and final settlement of his proprietary rights. He therefore retained copyright in his contribution and was entitled to recognition as a co-author and co-owner, with a corresponding share of the royalties and income derived from the exploitation of the work.
For the defendant, Mr. Emeka Etiaba, SAN, appearing with Ms. Omolola Aderolu and Mr. O. G. Ofomata, submitted that the plaintiff had failed to establish authorship or co-ownership.
Counsel argued that the defendant had written, composed, arranged and performed the song before engaging the plaintiff, including at an earlier performance in South Africa, and that his subsequent retention to provide sound production, mixing and mastering services, and to assist in developing the existing song into an album, did not confer authorship or co-ownership of the underlying musical work.
Senior counsel relied on the plaintiff’s own admission that the parties had agreed remuneration for his services and that he had been paid, submitting that the sums of N192,000 and N448,000 were consistent with an engagement for services and not with any agreement for co-ownership.
He further submitted that, because the plaintiff sought declaratory reliefs, he was obliged to establish authorship on the strength of his own evidence, and that his failure to place the song itself before the court meant that the court could not identify or assess the original musical elements he alleged he had created.
Resolving the issue in favour of the defendant, the court held that material contribution to a recording does not of itself confer authorship.
“Not every person involved in the creation of a recording is necessarily an author. A producer, engineer, session musician or sound technician may contribute materially to the finished product without becoming an author unless they create original expressive content. Authorship resides in the original creative mind responsible for the intellectual creation,” the court held.
Explaining the principle, the court stated that an author is the natural person who creates the intellectual property embodied in a musical work, including its melody, harmony, lyrics or arrangement.
“Copyright vests in the author from the moment of creation, without the need for registration or formal notice, and confers exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform and license the work,” the court said, adding that a musician who, as a composer, creates an original work through his ingenuity acquires an intellectual interest in that work which ranks pari passu with other proprietary rights.
Applying that to the facts, the court found that Way Maker was originally created by the defendant, who had performed the song in South Africa with persons other than the plaintiff before engaging him, and that the plaintiff’s role was limited to producing the existing song as a musical work for an agreed fee which he was paid.
The court accordingly held that he could not sustain his claim to authorship, and described the claim as “gold-digging and unmeritorious.”
The summary of the judgment is reported at (2026) 9 CLRN.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
