The High Court of Lagos State, sitting in the Ikeja Judicial Division before Honourable Justice D.T. Olatokun, has dismissed in its entirety a suit filed by Sporty Internet Limited against five individuals sued for themselves and as representatives of 42 sports bet users, holding that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to any of the reliefs sought.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
Judgment in the matter Suit No. ID/5719MJR/2024 was delivered on 15th November 2024, bringing to a close a closely watched legal battle between the licensed online sports betting operator and a group of its users whose accounts had been suspended over alleged fraudulent activity.
The Claimant, Sporty Internet Limited, a regulated and licensed online sports betting operator in Nigeria, approached the court via an Originating Summons filed on 1st July 2024, seeking declarations and perpetual injunctions against the Defendants Obinna George Unegbu, Uchenna Ofurum, Ifenna Moneke, Busola Olamide Aina, and Adedamola Oluwaseun Okunola.
According to the Claimant’s pleadings, in April 2024 it discovered a set of suspicious transactions on its gaming platform which allegedly violated its terms and conditions. The 42 user accounts involved, though carrying positive balances, were flagged and verified as being abusively operated and manipulated by what the Claimant described as an international cybercrime syndicate using bot technology. The accounts were subsequently suspended, and the Claimant petitioned both the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The Claimant alleged that the Defendants, rather than honour EFCC’s invitation, resorted to sponsored articles and false social media narratives that damaged its reputation and endangered relationships with global partners, financiers, and investors.
The Defendants, through their counsel Kunle Bamidele, filed a 42-paragraph Counter Affidavit deposed to by Busola Olamide Aina on 5th August 2024. They maintained that:
- The Claimant restricted their accounts only after they demanded access to their funds.
- They had, through their solicitors, written petitions to the NLRC and EFCC before the Claimant’s own petition, indicating that the Claimant’s action was an afterthought.
- The publications complained of were not sponsored by them but were journalistic inquiries seeking balanced commentary on the allegations.
- The Claimant itself caused the pre-emptive court orders to be published online, thereby acting in bad faith.
The court framed four core issues for determination:
- Whether the Claimant’s suit was in reality an action for defamation.
- Whether it amounted to a restriction of the Defendants’ freedom of expression.
- Whether the Claimants were entitled to perpetual injunction.
- Whether the court should order both parties to await and be bound by the EFCC and NLRC investigations.
On Issue One, the court held that although the Claimant’s averments in paragraphs 9–13 of its affidavit related to facts typical of a defamation suit, the reliefs and facts averred showed that the suit was essentially about alleged comments and publications inimical to the Claimant’s business. This issue was resolved in favour of the Claimant.
On Issue Two, the court affirmed that the right to freedom of expression under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution is not absolute. Citing Suleiman Shaibu & Ors v. Desmond Utomwen & Ors (2022) LPELR-58237(CA) and Omoyele Sowore v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2022) LPELR-57439(CA), the court invoked Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous dictum that “the right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
However, the court found that the Claimant had failed to establish that it acted in good faith in its own publications, observing that Exhibit A4 contained extensive statements by defence counsel Kunle Bamidele that went beyond an ordinary interview. Significantly, the court held that the Claimant’s own publication of the pre-emptive court orders online “smirks of bad faith,” invoking the equitable maxim that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands” (citing Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 417).
On Issue Three the crucial question of perpetual injunction the court held decisively that:
- Affidavit evidence in an Originating Summons does not amount to a full trial where oral evidence can be tested by cross-examination, as defined in Bornu Holding Company Ltd v. Bogoco (1971) LPELR-793(SC).
- The grant of a perpetual injunction would not finally settle the real dispute, which is the ongoing investigation by EFCC and NLRC and lies outside the scope of this action.
- Granting the injunction “may have the effect of sentencing the Defendants to a lifetime of silence in violation of their fundamental right of expression.”
Relying on Alade v. Sofolarin & Ors (2015) LPELR-25008(CA) and Kaan International Development Limited v. Little Acorns Turnkey Projects Limited & Anor (2018) LPELR-45291(CA), the court held that the Claimant was not entitled to reliefs 3 and 4.
On Issue Four, the court rejected the Claimant’s prayer that both parties be compelled to await and be bound by the outcome of the EFCC/NLRC investigation. The judge reasoned that:
- The EFCC and NLRC were not parties before the court, and no order could bind them (citing Total E & P Nigeria Limited v. Mr. Tari Imoladei & Ors (2012) LPELR-14256(CA)).
- The court cannot impose a timeline on statutory bodies in the conduct of their duties a court must not make an order in vain.
- Only judicial decisions are binding on parties; investigative or administrative bodies’ decisions cannot be imposed without granting parties their right to fair hearing (citing Rita Iyegbe v. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (2015) LPELR-40874(CA) and Jima Properties Limited v. Starucci Interiors Limited & Anor (2022) LPELR-59078(CA)).
- A suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court, not by an investigative body (Muhammed Maikudi v. The State (2022) LPELR-57399(CA)).
The court held that questions 1–3 of the Originating Summons were not in contention and represented the correct position of the law, making reliefs 1 and 2 “superfluous.” Consequently, the court concluded:“The claimant failed to prove that it is entitled to any of the reliefs sought in this suit. This suit is therefore hereby dismissed in its entirety.”
JUDGMENT IN SPORTY INTERNET LIMITED V OBINNA GEORGE UNEGBU AND OTHERSAppearances; Dr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN led a team comprising Bolu Agbaje Akadri, Emeka Ekweozor, and Oyindamola Olowu for the Claimant, while Kunle Bamidele appeared for the Defendants.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
