Justice Buba while noting that the model is entitled to her privacy and the privacy of her correspondence, under Section 37 of the Constitution, also handed down an order of injunction, restraining Wema Bank from passing off or causing and or enabling others to pass off Anosike’s professional services.
The model had in a suit, filed through her lawyer, Gideon Okebu, urged the court to direct Wema Bank to pay her N75 million, for passing-off on her services.
The lawyer also prayed for an order directing the bank to pay his client N20 million, for breaching her privacy by advertising her private correspondence. He also demanded for another N20 million, as special cost for filing the suit.
At the trial of the suit, the father of the model, Frank Anosike, gave his evidence and tendered nine exhibits, which were admitted by the court.
The bank also testified through one Bryan Igbinedion, but tendered no exhibit.
In the suit, the plaintiff, alleged that on April 11, 2016, the defendant used her picture for commercial purpose in a social network, called ‘Instagram’ without her consent or authorisation from the management of Ford Models Inc, a company in USA with which she had agreement to manage her career as a model.
The plaintiff further claimed that she is a reputable and international model, who had won many laurels within and outside the country, among which was ‘Elite Model Look’, 2013.
She added that based on her reputation, Pepsi-Cola Nigeria made her its brand ambassador for Aquafina Water in 2014.
The plaintiff averred that her contract with Ford Models Inc., the company that took her to USA, is for period of three years and prior to the advert of the defendant, which used her as their model, the
American company was already negotiating with her on how to renew the contract.
She further claimed that On April 11, 2016, the management of Ford Models summoned her to a meeting on April 12, 2016 and in which she was presented with her photographic advert procured from account of the defendant on Instagram.
She alleged that the defendant mutilated and photo edited her professional photograph for the said advert and advertised it on the World Wide Web.
She said the action of the bank had breached the contractual agreement between her and the American company and had consequently jeopardised her chance of contract extension with Ford Models Inc.
However, the defendant (Wema Bank) in its statement of defence, averred that it was neither a party nor privy to any of the modeling contract of the plaintiff with any third party.
The defendant averred that the picture in question, was on social media before it was sourced for its online weekly motivational and educational series via social media, intended purely to inspire young online users.
The bank denied using the plaintiff’s picture for any advertisement purposes or for any commercial gain but purely for free educational purpose under its corporate social responsibility programme.
