Nigeria: Anton Piller Order, Class Actions and Injunctions in Nigeria

Last Updated: 7 February 2002
Article by Obatosin Ogunkeye


Most acts of infringement of intellectual property right only become known to the owner of the right when the product or the tangible expression of the infringement is made available to the public.

Thus the retail trader selling the infringing product is the first person the owner of the right can identify as an infringer of his intellectual property right.

The owner of intellectual property right however knows that the retail trader is often, not the source of the infringing product, he is usually at the very end of the chain of distribution. Unfortunately, given the suspicion which the average Nigerian trader has for a stranger asking questions, the owner of the intellectual property right is not likely to quickly find out the name of the person who supplies the retail trader with the offending product.

Without being able to identify the source of the product in the market, the right owner is left with the option of suing the retailers. However, where the infringing product is being widely sold all over the country, retailers selling the infringing product will be so numerous that it will be impossible to sue each one of them individually.

On the other hand, without being able to bring all retailers of the infringing product within the ambit of a court order, the circulation of the offending product will not be stopped. The rights owner therefore needs to sue all the traders by suing a few of them as representatives of the rest of them.

The rights owner is also cognizant of the fact that if the retailers he intends to sue as representatives of all others, become aware that they are being sued, they are likely to get rid of all the infringing goods in their possession, particularly when the goods are obviously infringing.

The foregoing scenario is typical of the situation normally faced by the average intellectual property right owner in Nigeria when he has an infringement problem. Therefore a significant proportion of intellectual property right infringement action instituted in Nigeria are commenced with the plaintiff seeking the following three orders ex-parte:

1. The leave of the court to sue named defendants as representatives of all other persons dealing in the offending product.

2. An Anton Piller order, to enable access to be gained into the defendant’s premises for the purpose of taking possession of infringing products and documentary evidence of the volume of dealing in the infringing product to be found therein.

3. An interim injunction to restrain the defendants and the represented class from selling the offending product until the determination of the motion on notice filed at the same time as the motion ex-parte.

The purpose of this paper is mainly to identify current Nigerian practice with regards to these order. In the process, where the practice is found to require clarification by the courts, suggestions in that regard will be made.

The Anton Piller Order

The Anton Piller order is an order of court, made ex-parte and requiring a defendant or respondent to allow certain persons to enter his premises to search for documents and movable articles as are specified in the court order, and to permit such documents or articles to be taken away.

The first Anton Pillar order made in Nigeria was made by Anyaegbunam C.J. in Ferodo Limited v. Unibros Stores1 in 1980 following the persuasive authority of the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd.2 (the case from which the order took its name).

The next reported decision of a Nigerian court on the Anton Piller order was the decision of Belgore J in Oluwanishola Development Co. v. Guines Insurance Co. Ltd3. In refusing to grant an Anton Piller order as prayed in that decision, Belgore J did not disapprove of the order, he however disapproved of the variation to the order as prescribed in the Anton Piller case sought to be introduced in the Nigerian context. He ruled that it did not accord with the order prescribed in the Anton Piller case to order that the party serving the order should include a senior official of the court as well as policemen. He expressed the view that to involve officers of the court in the execution of the order would be to involve the court in the contest between the parties. He also ruled that to authorize policemen to accompany the team would be to give the order the colouration of a search warrant which it was not.

Subsequent to that decision, Belgore J (later C.J) granted several Anton Piller orders. He also softened his view regarding the presence of the police in the raiding team. He recognized that in the Nigerian environment, a group of persons seeking to serve an Anton Piller order in a market run a very high risk of being attacked by a mob. He therefore would allow a specified number of policemen to accompany the team serving the order but only for the purpose of keeping the peace.

After the above mentioned decisions in the 1980s there were at least two decisions4 of the Federal High Court in early 1990s in which the court refused to grant Anton Piller orders on the ground that to do so would be to breach the right to fair hearing enshrined in the Constitution. Subsequently though, both judges who gave the decisions have changed their minds and have been granting Anton Piller orders since then.

Recently however the question whether the grant of an Anton Piller order would breach the constitutional right of fair hearing appears to have been settled by the Court of Appeal in Akuma Ind. Ltd v. Ayman Ent. Ltd5. The issue was raised in that appeal. In the decision of the court on that issue, Pats-Acholonu JCA stated: "Indeed Anton Pillar order although seemingly appearing as a monstrosity has become accepted within the vortex of our legal doctrines and jurisprudence."

It is therefore to be regarded as settled that Anton Piller order is a remedy available in the Nigerian jurisprudence.

The Anton Piller Order is an order made in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court to do justice as occasion demands. The ex-parte nature of the order takes it out of reach of the normal rules of court authorizing inspection and discovery. Those rules require notice of an application in that regard to be given to the respondent.

The Anton Piller order is an order in personam. It is addressed to the respondent ordering him to permit the persons serving the order enter his premises and do therein, all the things which the order authorises them to do.

Lord Denning in his judgment in the Anton Piller case (at page 60) emphasized the fact that the order is not a search warrant which would empower entry into the respondent’s premises without his consent. He stated that the court had no authority to issue a search warrant in support of a civil action. Hence the respondent under an Anton Piller order has to give consent to the applicant to enter his premises otherwise the applicant cannot.

Though the respondent can refuse to permit the applicant to enter his premises, in view of the fact that the court has ordered him to give such permission, he runs the risk of a committal for contempt of court if he refuses.

In consideration of the drastic nature of the order, and given the fact that the respondent will not be heard before the order is made, Lord Denning in the Anton Piller case emphasized that the order should only be made:

"When it is necessary in the interest of justice ……. But only in an extreme case where there is grave danger of property being smuggled away or of vital evidence being destroyed"6

In the Consultation Paper on Anton Piller Order published by the Lord Chancellor in England in 1992 four pre-conditions for the making of an Anton Piller order were identified7. It is submitted that theses are the same principles governing the grant of an Anton Piller order in Nigeria:

1. There must be a strong prima facie case of a civil cause of action. The approach prescribed in American Cynamid –v- Ethicon8 is not appropriate.

2. The danger to the plaintiff to be avoided by the grant of an Anton Piller order must be serious. If an order is sought in order to forestall the destruction of evidence, the evidence in question must be major, if not critical, in importance.

3. The risk of destruction or removal of evidence must be a good deal more than merely possible. There must be a real reason to believe that the respondent will disobey an injunction for the preservation of the evidence in question.

4. The harm likely to be caused by the execution of the Anton Piller order to the respondent and his business affairs must not be excessive or out of proportion to the legitimate object of the order.

Recommendations concerning the execution of the Anton Piller order were made by the Sir Donald Nicholls V-C in Universal Thermosensors v. Hibben9. He recommended that an Anton Piller Order should contain provisions to ensure that

  1. The defendant should be able in fact as well as entitled in theory to take immediate legal advice before having to comply with the order. Therefore, Anton Piller Orders should be executed only on working days in office hours when a solicitor can be expected to be available.
  2. In the event of service at a private house a woman solicitor should serve the order if a woman is likely to be alone at the house.
  3. A list of all items to be removed should be prepared.
  4. Service at business premises should be in the presence of a responsible officer of the party served.
  5. The applicant should not have carte blanche to search a competitor’s files
  6. Service and execution should preferably be by an experienced and independent solicitor rather than the solicitor acting for the plaintiff
  7. The solicitor should provide a written report to the defendant and the court for the inter partes hearing

In Nigeria, there has been no judicial pronouncement or practice direction to regulate the execution of the Anton Piller Order. It is suggested that the above-mentioned recommendations of Sir Donald Nicholls V-C be considered and adopted.

Applications under section 22 of the Copyright Act.

The judicial view has been expressed10 that section 22 of the Copyright Act constitutes the statutory authority for granting an Anton Piller order in respect of Copyright infringement litigation. One respectfully wishes to disagree with that view.

An Anton Piller order requires the permission of the respondent before entry can be gained into his premises. The provision of section 22 of the Copyright Act empowers the court to authorize entry without the need to seek the permission of the respondent. The provision also empowers the court to authorize the applicant to inspect all documents in the possession of the respondent, without limiting such inspection to documents related to the infringing activity of the respondent. The Anton Piller order does not grant such unrestricted access to the respondent’s records.

It seems appropriate, given the extremely invasive nature of an order which can be made under this provision in a civil action, that in applying the provision, the courts should be guided by the rules of statutory interpretation which prescribe that statutes which detract from or abridge established rights, should be strictly construed against the person who seeks to benefit under it.11

In this regard the question arises to be considered whether it is not appropriate that an applicant for an order under this provision should not be limited to being accompanied to the premises of the defendant by only one policeman as expressly provided by the provision and whether the applicant should not be refused permission to remove any document from the premises of the respondent though he is authorized to inspect them as expressly provided by the provision.

Regardless of the issue raised, the court nevertheless retains the power in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to grant an Anton Piller order in respect of a copyright infringement action. Therefore an applicant who elects to ask for the remedy rather than an order under section 22 of the Copyright Act should be entitled to a normal Anton Piller order with all the safeguards erected by the courts to protect the interest of the absent defendant.

Class Actions

As earlier explained, where on the one hand the rights owner finds a product which infringes his intellectual property right on sale in numerous retail outlets and on the other hand he is unable to identify the source from which the retailers obtain their supply, a rights owner will only be able to deal with the infringement problem by instituting an action which will affect all persons who are dealing in the infringing product. To achieve this objective, he will have to obtain the leave of court to sue a few of the persons dealing in the infringing product for themselves and as representatives of all others dealing in the product.

The form of action which results, when a court grants leave to the plaintiff to sue one or more retailer on their own behalf as well as representing all other persons selling the offending product is known as a class action.

The first known class action in an intellectual property right litigation action in Nigeria was the unreported case of The Wellcome Foundation vs. Ope-Oluwa & Co. and 2 others12.

At the same time as the writ of summon was filed in the action, the plaintiff filed an ex-parte application praying the court for several reliefs including a prayer for leave to sue the defendants on their own behalf and as representing all other persons selling the product which the plaintiff complained of. The plaintiff also prayed for an interim injunction against the defendants and the persons they represent to restrain them from further sale of the product of which the plaintiff complains.

The court granted the orders prayed for ex-parte. Subsequently the defendant filed an application praying the court to strike out the suit on the ground that all the other persons purported to be represented by the defendant are not before the court, and that the court ought not to grant any of the reliefs claimed in the absence of all proper parties to the action.

In a considered ruling delivered on the 14th of March 1990, Tofowomo J., the presiding judge, held that the action was properly before the court, though members of the represented class are indeed not before the court. He went further, relying on the persuasive authority of the decision of the English Court of Appeal in EMI v. Kudhail13 and held that the court had jurisdiction to grant ex-parte orders against a represented class, and that where there was sufficient identity of interest amongst them, an injunction could be granted against them.

Since that decision, the class action has become a well established procedure in the practice of the Federal High court.

The most important criterion to be considered by the court in deciding whether or not to grant leave to a plaintiff to sue the defendant as representative of some others not brought before the court is provided in the rules of court.

Order 12 rule 8 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 provides that:

Where more persons than one have the same interest in one suit, one or more of them may, with the approval of the court, be authorized by the other persons interested to sue or to defend the suit for the benefit of or on behalf of all other parties so interested."

The Supreme court in Nta & Others v Anigbo14. in interpreting Order 4 rule 3 of the former Rules of the High Court of eastern Nigeria, a virtually identical provision, decided that the provision does not require the named defendant to obtain the consent of the persons he is being made to represent. The court held that it is for the court to decide whether it is appropriate that the named defendant should be sued as a representative of the persons he is being made to represent.

Order 14 rule 14 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules dealing with suits in a representative capacity also provides:

"Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one cause or matter one or more of such persons may with the leave of the Court or a Judge sue or be sued or may be authorized by the Court of Judge in Chambers to defend any such cause or matter on behalf or for the benefit of all persons so interested"

Whether leave is sought under Order 12 rule 8 of the Federal High Court rules, or Order14 rule 14 Lagos State High Court Rules the key phrase in both provisions is that all persons in the class and their representatives must have the same interest in the suit for a representative action to be possible. If they do not have the same interest, they ought not to be constituted as members of a single class.

In Roche –v- Sherrington15 it was held that, where there might be different defences open to persons sought to be jointly sued as members a class, a representative action is not proper and the action should be dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria in its decision in Idise –v- Williams International Limited16 held that in order for an action to lie in a representative capacity, there must be (1) common interest (2) a common grievance and (3) relief claimed must be beneficial to all. This principle was enunciated with regard to persons seeking to sue in a representative capacity, and not to defendants being sought to be sued as representatives of their class. However, the principle can be applied mutatis mutandis to postulate that where defendants are being sought to be sued as representatives of a class: (1) There must be common interest between them and all other members of the class (2) There must be a common defence and (3) The relief claimed by the plaintiff must affect all in the same way.

The English Court of appeal in E.M.I. v. Kudhail17, decided to grant an injunction against a represented class because they found that there was sufficient common interest between the members of the class. Therefore, if there was no common interest, the injunction would not have been granted.

Therefore, where a plaintiff seeks to group together in a class persons who may be dealing in different products, but only share the common factor that their different products infringe the same intellectual property right of the plaintiff, the court ought not to grant leave to sue those persons together in one group.

It therefore should be said in conclusion, that the definition of the class sought to be sued by a plaintiff ought to be closely scrutinized by the court before leave could be granted to sue the class. If the definition is so wide as to admit persons who are dealing in different products, it ought not to be allowed.


The Nigerian jurisprudence on injunctive remedies is well settled.

The Supreme court in Saraki v. Kotoye18 provided very clear guidelines based upon which an injunction would be granted. Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have only served to clarify and expatiate on those guidelines:

The basis principles could simply be stated as follows:

An ex-parte injunction will be granted:

  • when there is real urgency
  • When the court considers that on a prima facie view, an otherwise irreparable damage may be done to the plaintiff before an application on notice for interlocutory injunction can be heard.
  • Where there is a real impossibility of bringing the application on notice and serving the other party
  • For an interlocutory injunction to be granted the applicant must satisfy the court that:
  • There is a real possibility, though not a probability of success at the trial. In other words, that there is serious question to be tried in the matter before the court.
  • Damages cannot be an adequate compensation for the injury he would suffer by the time the suit is determined, if the interlocutory injunction were to be denied.
  • Where the respondent also alleges that he will suffer an injury which cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages, if the injunction were to be granted, then the applicant must go further to show that the balance of convenience is on his side.
  • The applicant must give an undertaking to pay damages as may be assessed by the court, if at the end of the day it turns out that the injunction ought not to have been granted.
  • The courts have largely been guided by these principles.
  • In recent time though courts have been warned repeatedly, not to be too eager to grant ex-parte injunctions, as the procedure appears to have been abused. It should be stated however that whilst courts ought to be more discriminatory in granting ex-parte injunctions, it is submitted with respect that such adjuration should not hinder the courts in granting the orders where the interest of justice demands it. It is submitted with respect, that in so far as all the conditions set down by the Supreme Court for granting an injunction ex-parte are met, an applicant who has made out a valid claim for an ex-parte injunction should not be denied.

©Obatosin Ogunkeye

23rd January 2002.

1(1980) F.S.R 489.

2(1976) Ch. 55

3(1980-(1986) Vol. 2 Nigerian Shipping Cases 275.

4See: Solignum v. Adetola (1992) FHCLR 157 at 163; Rokana Industries Ltd v. Maun (1993) FHCLR 243.

5 (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 633) 68.

6Anton Piller Case at pages 60-61

7Lord Chancellor’s Consultation Paper on Anton Piller Order. 1992 pages 7-8

8 (1975) AC 396

9 (1992) F.S.R. 361

10Rokana Industries Ltd. V. Maun (1993) FHCLR 243

11Peenok Investment Ltd. v. Hotel Presidential Ltd (1982) 13 NSCC 477

12Suit No. FHC/L/40/89.

13 (1985) F.S.R. 36

14(1972) All N.L.R. 510

15(1982) 2 All E.R. 426

16(1995) 1 NWLR (Pt 370) 142

17(1985) F.S.R 36

18(1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions