“Triable Issues Disclosed” — Court Dismisses CAC’s Objection In Artco’s ₦100m Suit Over Allegedly Identical Company Name

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed preliminary objections filed by the Corporate Affairs Commission and two others seeking to stop a ₦100 million suit instituted by Artco Industries Limited over the registration of an allegedly identical company name.

Justice Binta Nyako held that the objections filed by the CAC, Artco Furniture Manufacturing Company Limited and its owner, Chief (Dr.) Onyekachi Iheme, lacked merit.

The court ruled that the suit disclosed triable issues deserving full hearing and that the plaintiff had shown sufficient interest to seek redress over its corporate identity and goodwill.

Artco Industries Limited had sued the three defendants in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/164/2024, filed on February 8, 2024, through its counsel, Emmanuel Ekpenyong.

The plaintiff alleged that Artco Furniture Manufacturing Company Limited, incorporated on September 24, 2021, bears a name deceptively similar to its own corporate name, which it said had been in use since October 30, 2003.

According to the plaintiff, the similarity in names was capable of misleading members of the public into believing that both companies are related or affiliated.

Ekpenyong argued that the registration violated Section 852(1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, which prohibits the registration of identical or confusingly similar company names.

He urged the court to order the CAC to deregister Artco Furniture Manufacturing Company Limited and award ₦100 million in damages for alleged loss of revenue.

The CAC, however, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.

On their part, Artco Furniture Manufacturing Company Limited and Iheme argued that the suit amounted to an abuse of court process because a related case was pending before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

But Justice Nyako rejected the objections, holding that the issues raised by the plaintiff could only be properly determined at trial.

The judge also held that the case pending before the FCT High Court concerned a partnership dispute, while the present suit questioned the legality of the company’s incorporation under CAMA and the statutory powers of the CAC.

The matter was consequently adjourned to October 28 for trial.