A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has dismissed an ex parte application filed by Nollywood actress, Ann Njemanze, which sought an Anton Pillar order of the court in the suit against veteran Nollywood filmmaker, Zeb Ejiro, and his firm.
Coined from the 1975 case of Anton Piller K.G., the Anton Pillar order – an extraordinary form of injunctive relief – compels a defendant to permit a complainant to enter its property to search for and seize evidence and records, including electronic data and equipment.
Ejiro and Njemanze are locked in a legal battle over the ownership of ‘Domitila’, a 1996 classic movie.
While Njemanze sued Ejiro along with Filmone Entertainment and Film Trybe Media and Dioni Visions Entertainment for N50 million over ‘Domitila: The Reboot’, a remake of the original title, the veteran filmmaker has reacted by serving the actress with a counter-suit for N500million.
He described her lawsuit as a gold-digging exercise in a statement of defence filed by his lawyers.
Njemanze, who rose to fame after playing the titular character in the 1996 original film, trademarked the name, ‘Domitilla’ on September 16, 2020.
However, ruling in a suit NO: FHC/L/CS/541/2023 which Njemanze through her Counsel, T. H. Nnadi, Esq sought the leave of the court to move the Anton Pillar application during this Court’s Easter Vacation, the presiding judge, T. G. Ringim, refused it.
In dismissing the application, Justice Ringim stated: “I note the response made by the Learned Counsel to the Applicant when confronted with the information of a subsisting similar suit in the docket of this Honourable Court. His reaction was simply that the other matter was discontinued.
Citing the 2011 Evidence Act and other case laws, the judge continued: “Having observed that the Learned Counsel to the Applicant have transformed themselves into Vacation Counsel and having observed that the Applicant is ready to wait from Vacation to Vacation to move his application for Anton Pillar injunctive Order of the court, I do humbly feel the urgency in the application sought to be heard, even if leave were to be granted the Applicant to be heard during this Easter Vacation, is spent by the reprehensible character of the Applicant waiting in search for Vacation space to approach our Court of law.
“In the light of the above findings, I find no urgency worth granting the Application to be heard and this Application shall simply be dismissed.”
