MICHEAL OLUWOLE v. MRS OSINACHI JOSEPH EGBU (A.K.A SINACH)
FEDERAL HIGH COURT (LAGOS DIVISION)
(LEWIS-ALLAGOA, J)
FACTS
Micheal Oluwole (“the Plaintiff”) commenced the action on 8 March 2024 by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against Mrs. Osinachi Joseph Egbu, popularly known as Sinach (“the Defendant”), in respect of the musical work titled Way Maker.
The dispute arose from the Plaintiff’s involvement in the recording and production of Way Maker. In the course of the engagement, the Plaintiff worked as a studio engineer and provided recording, mixing and mastering services. He also worked on the melodies and parts of several musical instruments used as accompaniments to the Defendant’s vocals in the recorded version of the song.
Before the Plaintiff’s involvement, the Defendant had written and composed Way Maker and had performed it in South Africa. She later engaged the Plaintiff to work on the existing song and to provide sound production, mixing and mastering services in connection with its development and recording. The parties did not execute a written agreement setting out the terms of the engagement or their respective interests in the work. The engagement was based on an oral arrangement, and payments made to the Plaintiff through Slic Inspire Limited included ₦192,000 on 20 October 2015 and ₦448,000 on 10 December 2015.
A disagreement subsequently arose over the nature and extent of the Plaintiff’s contribution to, and rights in, the musical work. The Plaintiff consequently instituted the present action, seeking, amongst other reliefs, declarations that he was an author and co-owner of Way Maker; an equitable division of income derived from the work; disclosure and accounts of licences and assignments relating to the work; ₦5 billion in general damages; and an injunction restraining further exploitation of the work.
One of the issues for determination was: Whether this Honourable Court can make a determination on whether the Plaintiff is the author, writer, composer, creator, co-owner and performer of the musical instruments in the musical work/song, ‘Way Maker’.
ARGUMENTS
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff’s contribution to Way Maker was creative and not merely technical. Counsel argued that the Plaintiff composed the melodies and instrumental parts accompanying the Defendant’s vocals and thereby contributed original expression to the musical work. It was submitted that the persons who created a musical work are its authors and copyright owners and that, where different persons have interests in the various copyrights comprising a composite production, they are deemed co-owners. Counsel therefore contended that Way Maker, being a composite production comprising the respective contributions of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, gave rise to joint authorship and co-ownership.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Plaintiff’s engagement went beyond technical mixing and mastering services because he contributed original musical elements to the finished work. Counsel maintained that the Defendant’s vocals and the Plaintiff’s melodies and instrumental accompaniments were distinct but inseparable elements of the musical work and that each party therefore held an interest in the copyright arising from his or her contribution.
Counsel also argued that payment for the Plaintiff’s services did not, without more, extinguish or transfer the copyright in his creative contribution. There was no written agreement assigning his interest to the Defendant, limiting his role to that of a mixing and mastering engineer, or providing that the payments constituted full and final settlement of his proprietary rights. Counsel therefore maintained that the Plaintiff retained copyright in his contribution and was entitled to recognition as a co-author and co-owner, together with a corresponding share of the royalties and income derived from the exploitation of Way Maker.
In response, learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff failed to establish that he was an author or co-owner of Way Maker. Counsel argued that the Defendant had written, composed, arranged and performed the song before engaging the Plaintiff, including at an earlier performance in South Africa. The Plaintiff was subsequently retained to provide sound production, mixing and mastering services and to assist in developing the existing song into an album. Such involvement, counsel submitted, did not confer authorship or co-ownership of the underlying musical work.
Learned Senior Counsel further relied on the Plaintiff’s admission that the parties had agreed on remuneration for his services and that he had been paid. He argued that the payments of ₦192,000.00 and ₦448,000.00 were consistent with an engagement for services and not with any agreement for co-ownership. He also submitted that, because the Plaintiff sought declaratory reliefs, he had to establish authorship on the strength of his own evidence. His failure to place Way Maker before the Court meant that the Court could not identify or assess the original musical elements allegedly created by him. Counsel therefore urged the Court to hold that the Plaintiff had not proved authorship or co-ownership of the work.
DECISION OF THE COURT
In resolving the issue, the Federal High Court held that:
Not every person involved in the creation of a recording is necessarily an author. A producer, engineer, session musician or sound technician may contribute materially to the finished product without becoming an author unless they create original expressive content. Authorship resides in the original creative mind responsible for the intellectual creation.
The Federal High Court explained that an author is the natural person who creates the intellectual property embodied in a musical work, including its melody, harmony, lyrics or arrangement. Copyright vests in the author from the moment of creation, without the need for registration or formal notice, and confers exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform and license the work. A musician who, as a composer, creates an original work through his ingenuity acquires an intellectual interest in that work which ranks pari passu with other proprietary rights.
In the instant case, the Court found that Way Maker was originally created by the Defendant, who had performed the song in South Africa with persons other than the Plaintiff before engaging him. The Plaintiff’s role was limited to producing the existing song as a musical work for an agreed fee, which he was paid. Accordingly, the Court held that the Plaintiff could not sustain his claim to authorship of Way Maker and described the claim as “gold-digging and unmeritorious.”
Issue resolved in favour of the Defendant.
Matthew Enilolobo for the Plaintiff.
Emeka Etiaba SAN with Omolola Aderolu and O. G. Ofomata for the Defendant.
This summary is fully reported at (2026) 9 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company.
