Two Nigerian beverage makers battle in court over energy drink controversy

Two manufacturing companies have engaged in a legal battle before Federal High Court in Abuja over beverages trademark, as one of them equally approached the court requesting for dismissal of the suit.

Penpushing reports that Rite Foods Limited, the maker of Fearless Energy Drinks, had filed the suit, and in response the manufacturer of Pop Power Energy Drinks, Mamuda Beverages Nigeria Limited prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

The plaintiff in the case Rite Foods Limited in the case, is the producer of Nigerian Bigi Drinks, Fearless Energy Drinks, Sosa Fruit Drinks and Rite and Bigi Sausage Rolls, and filed the case with reference number FHC/ABJ/CS/705/2025 to contest the production of Pop Power Energy Drinks over allegations that the drink has striking resemblance with one of its products.

Penpushing further reports that in the ex-parte motion, the company sought a preservative order pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit, although the matter was fixed for hearing of the motion ex-parte, but Mamuda Beverages Nigeria Limited, the sole defendant, however got wind of the suit and the hearing date.

The Rite Foods Limited was represented by Boonyamen Lawal while O.E.B Offiong announced appearance for Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd in the suit when it was called, and Offiong told the court that, though the matter was scheduled for the plaintiff’s ex-parte motion, a preliminary objection had been filed on behalf of his client challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

Penpushing also reports that the counsel argued that the principle is well settled that when there is an application affecting the court, this has to be settled first, but Lawal, however, disagreed with Offiong’s submission

The Rite Foods Limited lawyer said he was only served with the preliminary objection dated and filed on April 22, 2025, the previous day and he had the right to respond, stressing that there was a motion ex-parte to be heard and it is ripe.

‘They know what they are doing. They cannot be heard. We have a motion ex-parte to be heard and it is ripe. Their motion is saying that we should not be heard and I was only served yesterday. Our motion ex-parte is for the business of the day. It was dated and filed on 14th of April, 2025. Subject to your lordship’s convenience, we are ready to proceed’, he said.

“Even on the course list, it is listed as motion ex-parte. Even though they (Mamuda Beverages lawyer) announced appearance and I did not say anything, our motion is ripe and we are ready to proceed,” he stated.

Penpushing reports that Offiong in response argued that no matter how a party becomes aware of a suit, when it borders on the jurisdiction of the court, the objection ought to be heard first insisting that once an application that bordered on the jurisdiction was filed, the court cannot proceed on the business of the day.

The lawyer prayed the court to adjourn the hearing so that Lawal could respond appropriately to their objection, adding that he had seen a copy of the directive of the chief judge concerning vacation cases.

Penpushing further reports that he argued that the suit filed by Rite Foods Limited did not fall in the category of matters to be regarded as urgent cases, stressing that it was not a fundamental right issue as said by the Chief Justice who enumerated matters that should be heard.

The counsel to Rite Foods Limited who urged the court to discountenance Offiong’s argument, said their suit was in the category of matters of extreme urgency, and pointed out the daily loss by the plaintiff by the action of the defendant.

Penpushing also reports that the lawyer said his client was bleeding and that if not heard, there might be nothing to adjudicate on by the court, however, while addressing the court, Offiong said the motion on notice was dated and filed on April 22, 2025.

The judge, Justice Nwite, explained that, being a vacation judge, priority is given to a motion ex-parte once it is filed due to the urgency of the matter, adding that Lawal informed the court that he was only served with the preliminary objection the previous day and that his (Lawal’s) motion was ripe for hearing.

Penpushing reports that the judge wondered how the defendant got to know about the motion ex-parte, he cannot just gloss over the issue of jurisdiction raised by it, but assured that the court would do justice to the matter

Meanwhile, an “ex parte motion” is a legal request made to a court by one party without notifying the other party involved in the case and the judge only considers the one party’s arguments and evidence, without hearing the opposing side’s perspective, while the motion is typically used in emergency situations or when there’s a compelling reason to proceed without notifying the other party.

FOOTNOTE: You want to share story with us? You want to advertise with us? You need publicity for product, or service, or   event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348073463653 or email penpushing@yahoo.com