The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Friday dismissed the preliminary objections filed by the Corporate Affairs Commission and two others, challenging the competence of the N100 million suit filed by a furniture manufacturer, Artco Industries Limited.

The plaintiff filed the suit over the alleged registration of an identical company, resulting in the diversion of its business and loss of revenue.

Justice Binta Nyako, in a ruling, held that the plaintiff’s case, Artco Industries Limited, disclosed triable issues that ought to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

Ms Nyako held that the preliminary objections by CAC, Artco Furniture Manufacturing Company Ltd and its owner, Onyekachi Iheme, lacked merit.

It would be recalled that Artco Industries Limited, in the suit filed by its lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of Fred-Young & Evans LP, sued CAC, Artco Furniture Manufacturing Company Ltd and Mr Iheme as the first to third defendants, respectively.

In the writ of summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/164/2024 dated February 7, 2024 and filed on February 8, 2024, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the second defendant’s name, registered on September 24, 2021, is similar to its name, registered since October 30, 2003.

This, Mr Ekpenyong said, misled members of the general public into believing that the plaintiff’s and second defendant’s companies are owned by the same persons or that the second defendant is a subsidiary of the plaintiff.

The lawyer urged the court to declare that the defendants’ acts contravened Section 852(1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020.

The CAMA Act, he added, forbids the registration of a company whose name is identical with an existing name or a name which nearly resembles an existing name as to be calculated to deceive the public.

He, therefore, sought an order directing the CAC to deregister and strike out the name of the second defendant, Artco Furniture Manufacturing Company Limited, from its database.

He further sought an order directing the defendants to jointly and severally pay the sum of N100 million for damages resulting from loss of revenue due to CAC’s failure to carry out due diligence before registering the 2nd defendant.

But the first, second, and third defendants filed preliminary objections, praying that the court dismiss the suit. In its objection filed on January 24, 2025, CAC formulated a lone issue for determination.

The commission asked the court to determine whether it had made out a good case for striking out its name and whether the court lacked competence to try the matter as presently constituted.

On their part, the second and third defendants, in their joint notice of preliminary objection filed on June 24, 2025, also formulated one issue for determination. They wanted the court to determine whether the suit constituted an abuse of court process.

They argued that a similar suit was pending before an FCT High Court and had not been disposed of, submitting that such an action amounted to an abuse of judicial process aimed at irritating the defendants.

But Mr Ekpenyong, in his reply, urged the court to dismiss the objections for lacking merit.

Ms Nyako, in her ruling delivered on June 29 (the certified true copy was made available on Friday), said Artco Industries Limited’s allegations “are not idle complaints”.

“A close examination of the plaintiff’s pleadings reveals the allegations that the plaintiff has carried on business under the name Artco Industries Limited since 2003. That during the subsistence of its partnership arrangement with the third defendant, he incorporated the second defendant under a name which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.

“That members of the public have been misled into believing that both entities are one and the same and that despite repeated complaints, the first defendant (CAC) failed to take steps pursuant to its statutory powers under the Companies and Allied Matters Act,” she said.

According to the judge, there are allegations of direct injury to the plaintiff’s corporate identity, goodwill and business interests. She said whether those allegations are ultimately established is a matter for trial.

She held that the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable course of action against the defendants.

Ms Nyako, likewise, held that the allegation of abuse of court process, as canvassed by the second and third defendants, cannot be established merely because two proceedings exist between the parties, citing a previous Supreme Court decision.

Ms Nyako subsequently adjourned the matter until October 28 for trial.

(NAN)