LEGAL ISSUES IN THE BUSINESS OF A ‘SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCER’
By Elvis E. Asia[i]
Introduction
Technological advancement in the area of information has orchestrated a generational shift from the traditional methods for dissemination of information. Today, everyone is his/her TV and radio stations and journalist. With the help of social media, people can easily broadcast their thoughts and ideas to the world. Apart from the fact that this has assisted small businesses to reach out to customers, it has also created a massive industry- influencer marketing.
Influencers are people who are so popular on social media that their followers pay attention to their views and life style. They channel this influence to encourage their followers to buy products and services they promote[1]. They can also influence political views or assist candidates in elections as well as image marketing for individuals and corporations. The term has been defined as ‘persons with the ability to influence potential buyers of a product or service by promoting or recommending the items on social media…’[2].
The Business of Influencer Marketing
Influencers are increasingly deployed in marketing, advertising and promotions. This has given prominence to their role. The business of influencer marketing is a relationship between a brand and an Influencer with a large following where the brand leverages the influencer’s followers to make sales, and the influencer receives payment, or free or discounted products from the brand[3]. You can call it ‘trust marketing’ in the sense that the brand utilizes the trust and influence the Influencers wield on their followers to make sales, brand awareness and trend setting. The appeal of this model of advertising is that it is organic unlike advertising in the traditional sense. Advertising in the traditional sense is hardly trusted by people but when their idols brag about the impact of goods and services, it is very easy for them to accept and believe in the product or service.
The leveraging of people’s social media presence (trust and influence) to market, promote or advertise products and services is the new normal in marketing. Globally, it is estimated that the influencer marketing industry will be worth up to $15 billion by 2022, up from $8 billion today[4]. This is a huge industry which is already being keyed into by companies in Nigeria. The major drivers of this growth are the youth who do not subscribe to traditional marketing. Of Nigeria’s over 200 billion people, about 63% are between the age group of 0-24[5]. The majority of this group gets almost everything from social media.
Gone are the days when the business of an influencer was solely that of ‘celebrities’[6]. Today, influencers are classified into other categories like Macro Influencers[7], Middle (Power) Influencers[8] and Micro Influencers[9]. There are also now Nano-Influencers[10] who are everyday social media users with far fewer following than the other categories.
Legal Considerations
Whether you are a celebrity or Nano Influencer or even an aspiring one, there are many legal issues that that are relevant directly or indirectly to influencers and the business of Influencer marketing generally. This article takes a look at the major ones.
Contract between the social media platform and the influencer
Every social media platform has it terms of use. In the process of signing up, users agree to terms and conditions[11]. Instagram for example is a major platform for influencers. Under the terms and conditions of instagram, users grant the platform a “non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content”. This simply means that Instagram has the right to use users’ content[12]. The right includes the right to sell the content to anyone anywhere in the world. This is scary considering the nature of things posted on instagram. An Influencer may be in breach of an exclusive license granted to a third party over a photo, video or other contents shared on the platform[13].
Another important issue is that under the terms are conditions of almost all social platforms; there are many infractions that that can earn a user suspension or deletion. The infractions include hate speech, bullying, sexual activity, nudity, harassment, impersonation, illegal or fraudulent activities, posting private or confidential information or violation of others’ intellectual property rights etc. An influencer should be aware of these to avoid suspension or deletion which may result in breach of contract with a client.
Contract between the influencer and third parties
It is important for the agreement between the influencer and the client stipulate that the client accepts the terms and conditions of the social media platform, between the influencer and the social media platform. This will insulate influencers against implied breach of contract arising from the permissions granted to the social media platform.
Another important consideration is that the brand or company being marketed should warrant that they have all the necessary licenses or permits to market the goods or services. In Nigeria, there are many sectoral regulations which govern the way goods and services are marketed. For example, for telecommunication companies, permission must be obtained to advertise pursuant to the Nigerian Communications Commission Guidelines on Advertisements and Promotions[14]. For businesses involved with food, drugs and other related products, the National Agency for Food & Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) must give approval for adverts[15].
Apart from regulations, influencers may be exposed to a class action for damages by followers for misleading statements or fake testimonials. Influencers must therefore ensure that their opinion on brands and products being marketed are based on experience, facts or on adequate testing. The brands may also get into trouble with regulatory agencies for false and misleading advertising. One way to protect themselves in this regard is for the parties to extract warranties, representation and indemnities.
Influencer marketing contract is not different from other conventional contracts. An influencer who fails to influence may be liable in damages against the brand or clients for breach of contract[16]. A peculiar issue in this regard is the incidence of false representation on followership. Many influencers go as far as ‘buying’ followership, ‘likes’ and comments to land marketing deals[17]. This may give the client a false sense of capacity to influence. The fundamental premise of influencer marketing is leveraging on the ‘influence’ and ‘trust’ of the influencer. A ‘purchased’ following may not invoke that level of trust that would generate the real influence necessary to deliver on the influencer’s promise. Whilst the brands should do their analysis before entering into marketing contracts with influencers, an influencer who falsely represented capacity to influence and who fails to do so may be liable to the brand.
Finally, a solid contractual arrangement is important for a sustainable influencer marketing business. Though there are currently no reported conflicts being influencers and their clients in Nigeria, as the market expands and gains prominence, conflicts would definitely arise resulting in disputes between influencers and brands. Many influencers in Nigeria currently ignore the need for proper contracting mechanisms in influencer marketing but the need for it would become apparent in the next few years.
Influencer Disclosure Obligation
An inescapable rule of social media influencers’ marketing is that the influencer must disclose any material connection with the brand, products or services being marketed. This obligation has been expressed in many regulations and laws across the globe and it is part of the attempt to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive acts in buying and using products and services.
In the United State of America (US), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) made endorsement guidelines pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act to specifically apply the law to digital and social media marketing[18]. Under the regulation, a material connection may be monetary, family ties, friendship, business relationship or employee relationship, receiving discounted products etc[19]. An influencer must clearly and conspicuously disclose the connection in his/her posts that endorses the products, services, brand or company[20]. Similar legal framework exists in Canada. Though there is no express provision on influencer marketing in the Cnadian Competition Act like in most other jurisdictions, the Competition Bureau considers that the Act applies to all forms of marketing, including influencer marketing[21]. In 2018, the Bureau published the Deceptive Marketing Practices Digest- Volume 4 with specific information on influencers[22].
In the UK, The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in collaboration with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) designed the Influencer’s Guide[23]. According to the ASA, when a brand rewards an influencer with a payment, free gift, or other perk, any resulting posts become subject to consumer protection law. Disclosure obligations for social media advertising have been recognized by South African’s Advertising Regulatory Board (“ARB”) in Appendix K of its Code of Conduct[24]. The code was made to ensure full transparency in Social Media Advertising campaign as opposed to purely Organic Social Media.
The acceptable terms of disclosure are ‘#ad’ or ‘Ad’, ‘Sponsored’, ‘Promotion’, ‘Paid ad’, ‘Thanks [COMPANY NAME] for the free product’, ‘Thanks [COMPANY NAME] for the gift of [NAME] product’, ‘#[COMPANY NAME]_Ambassador’[25].
There is no specific guide on regulation of digital or influencer marketing in Nigeria. However, given that the guidelines in other jurisdictions were published pursuant to competition and consumer protection legislations, the author submits that influencer marketing is regulated in Nigeria under general principles of unfair contract terms, competition and consumer protection laws. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018(FCCPA)[26], has sufficient general provisions that are applicable to digital marketing. Sections 123- 126 and other provisions of the FCCPA embrace the general philosophical underpinning of false, misleading or deceptive marketing, irrespective of the platform used. Though influencer marketing is not specifically mentioned, the provisions apply to influencers as agents of the producers or service providers. In view of the ubiquitous use of influencers in marketing in Nigeria, it is only a matter of time regulatory guidelines would be made on influencer or digital marketing under the FCCPA.
Influencers and the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON)
APCON is a body established by the Advertising Practitioners (Registration, Etc.) Act (APA)[27]. The Act is the legal framework for the regulation of advertising practitioners in Nigeria. Purportedly acting under the law, APCON, issued the 5th Nigerian Code of Advertising Practice & Sales Promotion (APSAP) effective January 2013. In summary, the APSAP made it mandatory for the approval of the Advertising Standards Panel (ASP) to be obtained before any advertisement or promotion. There have also been recent threats by APCON to regulate social media marketing in Nigeria[28].
APCON’s APSAP and the threat to regulate social media advertising is not borne out of its enabling enactment. The APA is strictly limited to regulation of membership of APCON. There is no provision in the APA which legitimizes regulation of advertising generally except to the extent of training and registration of members. Membership of the body is not a condition for advertising in Nigeria.
This conclusion has been given judicial recognition in Nigeria. In MIC Royal Limited v. APCON[29] the Court of Appeal held APA does not apply to persons/entities who are not members of the advertising profession. Accordingly, the APSAP was null and void to the extent that it sought to regulate non-members of the APCON. This decision is consistent with the intention of parliament discernable from the provisions of the APA and the earlier decision of the court in APCON v. The Registered Trustees of International Covenant Ministerial Council & Ors[30].
The effect of the decisions of the court of appeal is that APCON has no jurisdiction to regulate social media marketing or any form of marketing.
Defamation/False Advertising and Cybercrime Law
Gossip, the historical pastime of man, has been given full expression by social media. Many people think erroneously that social media is a license for falsehood. This misconception is amplified in the desperate bid to shore up followership, likes and comments. Falsehood, i.e., the publication of false information about a person, institution or product, is actionable both in civil and criminal law. A social media influencer must ensure that posts on his/her page are not defamatory of other people’s character.
Defamation is a false written or oral statement that is injurious to a person’s reputation[31]. The peculiar dynamics of defamation on social media has not been considered by our courts but persuasive decisions from other jurisdictions show that the cause of action is not watered down simply because the falsehood was spread on social media. On the contrary, the damages payable may be increased by the number of followers, comments and shares[32]. A person who shares the falsehood is as guilty as the originator. In Canada, a facebook user was held liable for the defamatory comments on a post about a neighbour[33]. A South Australian District Court similarly in 2018[34] found a defendant liable for the defamatory comments made by other Facebook users on the defendant’s page. The court reasoned that by publishing the posts, the defendant “must be taken to have accepted the responsibility to monitor (the comments) and remove those which were inappropriate or suffer the consequences of the inconvenience involved”.[35]
In AvePoint, Inc. v. Power Tools, Inc.[36], a US federal district court imposed liability based on a defamatory tweet about the origin of the claimant’s products. A British court in McAlpine v. Bercow[37] even extended the potential for liability to emojis. The court held that an emoji can trigger liability for defamation on social media[38]. In MONROE V HOPKINS [39]the UK court recently awarded £24,000 plus legal costs against a twitter user, Ms Hopkins, for a tweet directed at Ms Monroe, which read “Scrawled on any memorials recently? Vandalised the memory of those who fought for your freedom. Grandma got any more medals?” A court in Switzerland also awarded damages against a man for “liking” defamatory comments on Facebook[40]
Apart from defamation at common law, under Nigerian Law defamation is a crime both under the criminal code laws and The Cyber Crime (Prohibition, Prevention Etc) Act 2015 (Cybercrime Act)[41]. Section 24(1) (b) of The Cyber Crime Act provides as follows:
“24 Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that –
(b) he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a message to be sent:
commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment”.
A related cybercrime under Nigerian law is offensive, indecent, pornographic and obscene publication. Today, every youth wants to become an Influencer. In a bid to do so, they publish all sorts of contents online. Many of these contents may be offensive, pornographic and indecent. Section 24 (1) (a) of the Cybercrime Act makes such publications a criminal offence in Nigeria. The section provides that anyone who knowingly sends a message by means of a computer that ‘is grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causes any such message or matter to be so sent;’ is guilty of an offence. It must be borne in mind that the right to freedom of expression and the press[42] is not absolute and can be deviated from to protect public morality[43].
Intellectual property protection and Influencer marketing
In the business of social media influencing, care must be taken not to violate intellectual property (particularly copyright) of others. It is very easy for people to lift information, pictures and videos posted or written by other people without permission. Many have argued that social media enthrones a different culture of free sharing and that the ability to share is what keeps the new media. It must be said that the application of intellectual property rules is somewhat nebulous in the context of social media. Coupled with enforcement difficulties, this argument which endorses the theft of original creator’s intellectual property is largely perceived as the norm. But with technological advancement leading to automation of the process of determining unlicensed use of contents like photographs, videos and music, the ease and chances of enforcement are enhanced. The free-for-argument is inimical to the fundamental basis of intellectual protection which is encouragement of creativity. As man increasingly rely on social media and the internet for expression practically in all things, the notion that that exactitude is free-for-all would disincentivise creativity.
Copyright law applies irrespective of whether you are on social media or traditional media. Apart from the fact that the social media platform can suspend or delete your account for breach of copyright, the copyright owner may institute an action for the breach. This will damage the influencer’s reputation and lead to punitive damages.
Copyright protects the expression of ideas[44] through literary, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films, sound recordings and broadcast[45]. For the works to be protected, it must be original and fixed in a definite medium of expression. Originality means that sufficient effort must have been expended on making the work to give it an original character[46]. Fixation on the other hand, means that the work is in a medium from which it can perceived, reproduced and communicated[47] like social media.
Ownership of copyright is vested on the author[48]. This can create an issue in the make believe world of social media. For example, when an Influencer commissions another person who is not an employee to take his/her pictures, produce a video, etc. copyright in the work vests on the author except the contract assigned copyright in the work to the Influencer[49]. The effect of this is that the Influencer will be breaching copyright by publishing the picture or video on social media without consent[50]. the same is true for Regramming or reposting on Instagram without acknowledgement[51].
The surest way to avoid infringement is to post original contents and request permission to repost others’ contents[52].
A related issue is image rights or the rights of publicity. Image rights or the right of publicity, is a right acquired throughout one’s lifetime by creating economic value in one’s name, image or likeness. It refer to a person’s right to commercialize aspects of his personality such as, name, physical appearance, pictures or caricatures, signature, personal logos and slogans, and also the right to prevent other people from commercially making use of them[53]. An important aspect of the right is the right of endorsement which refers to the use of person’s name, likeness, image and reputation in connection with the advertising of goods or services.
Social media is not a license to commercialize the image of others. Though the common practice today is to post and repost anything and everything, an Influencer wishing to build a sustainable business must be wary of the pitfall. It must be noted that there is no express law in Nigeria on the issue but given that the modern world of social media is built on image publishing and considering the reach of the entertainment industry, the court will be willing to consider the right[54].
Conclusion
Influencer marketing
is the rave of the moment. Influencers, brands and those wishing to venture
into the business should acquaint themselves with the legal issues that are
relevant to the industry. The most important issues are disclosure obligations,
contracting, marketing regulations and intellectual property protection.
[1] See https://influencermarketinghub.com/what-is-an-influencer/
[2] See, ‘The State of Influencer Marketing in Nigeria Report’ published by Dotts Media House in 2018. It is available online at https://dottsmediahouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Media-Report.pdf
[3] https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/146350/influencer-marketing-in-south-africa-the-stats-you-need-to-know
[4] https://www.pulse.com.gh/bi/tech/influencer-marketing-2019-why-brands-cant-get-enough-of-an-dollar8-billion-ecosystem/pjjs0mp. see also Influencer Marketing Hub’s 2019 report on the growth of Influencer marketing in 2019 at https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-2019-benchmark-report/
[5] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/nigeria-population/#broad-age
[6] Famous personalities mostly in entertainments and sports with one million and above followers.
[7] These are influencers with more than 100, 000 followers and who became famous from their online content.
[8] This category has 10, 000 and above followers with high level engagement with followers.
[9] This category has fewer following (1000 and above) but with close relationship with their followers. See generally ‘How to make Influencer Marketing work for you in Nigeria’, available online at https://techpoint.africa/2018/02/21/make-influencer-marketing-work-nigeria/. Accessed on 22/10/2019
[10] See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/rise-nano-influencer-brands-celebrities-youtube-instagram.
[11] These agreements take the form of a clickwrap, browsewrap, hybridwrap, and scroll-wrap. Their nature and enforceability was exhaustively discussed by the author in an earlier article. See “Enforceability of arbitration clauses in online agreements under the Nigerian law”, online at
[12] Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Linkedin and other social media sites have similar provisions in their terms and conditions.
[13] In Xposure Photos UK Ltd. v. Khloe Kardashian et al, a photographic agency instituted an action against Khloe Kardashian claiming it owned copyright her photo posted on her instagram. The matter was eventually settled.
See https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/21253198/Xposure_Photos_UK_Ltd_v_Khloe_Kardashian_et_al
[14] https://www.ncc.gov.ng/docman-main/legal-regulatory/guidelines/52-guidelines-on-advertisements-promotions/file
[15] See NAFDAC guidelines on advertisement of regulated products here.
[16] There are already cases being instituted against influencers in other jurisdictions. For example In PR Consulting, Inc. v Luka Sabbat, PR Consulting filed a complaint in 2018 claiming damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Sabbat for failing to influence. Sabbat was contracted to create and post contents on social media in connection with “spectacles Marketing Campaign” for Snap Inc. under the contract, Sabbat was required to make four unique posts, get those posts approved beforehand, send analytics to the firm, and be photographed wearing the Spectacles in public at Paris and Milan Fashion Weeks for a fee of $60, 000 with a down payment of $45,000. Sabbat did not comply with all of the requirements and refused to return the $45,000. The matter was finally settled with Sabbat refunding $15,000 in August, 2019. The complaint is available online at
[17] Influencer fraud is a major issue in Influencer marketing across the globe. Univer is reported to have declared war on Influencer fraud. See Influencer Marketing Hub’s ebook on Influencer fraud, available online at https://influencermarketinghub.com/Influencer-Fraud.pdf
[18] See https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
[19] https://www.truthinadvertising.org/social-media-influencer-disclosure-requirements/
[20] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf. Failure to make the disclosure attracts penalties ranging from $20-$50,000 against both the brand and the influencer.
[21] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=080a3831-b953-49e2-972e-ada68e04b93f
[22] https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/04372.html
[23] See https://www.asa.org.uk/news/new-guidance-launched-for-social-influencers.html
[24] http://arb.org.za/assets/appendix-k.pdf
[25] There is no universal consensus on the acceptable hashtag. In August 2019 for example, the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority issued a decision saying that using the hashtag disclosure #BrandAmbassador did not sufficiently disclose the influencer’s relationship to the brand. The authority expressed preference for #ad. The decision is available here: https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/cocoa-brown-A19-561238.html
[26] The Act was signed into law on February 5, 2019
[27] No. 55 of 1988, CAP A7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (the “Act”)
[28] See https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/07/experts-urge-apcon-to-regulate-advert-jingle-on-social-media/
[29] (2018) LPELR-45314(CA)
[30] 2010) LPELR (CA) 3630
[31] CHILKIED SECURITY SERVICES & DOG FARMS LTD v. SCHLUMBERGER (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44391(SC)
[32] Though the law of defamation applies to comments and posts on social media as in conventional publications, it must be observed that there is a peculiar sense in which, posts, words and comments are used on social media which may invite a special criteria for determining a defamatory meaning. The English Supreme Court decision in Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17 and the cases of Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 (QB) and Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB) confirms the readiness of the court to take cognizance of the caual nature of discussions on social media. In upholding the appeal in Stocker’s case, the Supreme Court held that “The fact that this was a Facebook post is critical. The advent of the 21st century has brought with it a new class of reader: the social media user. The judge tasked with deciding how a Facebook post or a tweet on Twitter would be interpreted by a social media user must keep in mind the way in which such postings and tweets are made and read.”
[33]Pritchard v. Van Nes 2016 BCSC 686, available online at https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm
[34] Johnston v Aldridge [2018] SADC 68 at [185]
[35] In Monir v Wood, the court held a defendant was liable for a defamatory message posted on its Twitter account because the author of the tweet was acting as his agent. The court also found that he did not immediately deleted the offending message, which meant he was liable for its continuing publication for the period after he became aware of it and until he himself deleted it after being contacted by police.
[36] No. 7:2013cv00035 – Document 62 (W.D. Va. 2013)
[37] [2013] EWHC (QB) 1342
[38] See generally, Nicole Pelletier, The Emoji that Cost $20,000: Triggering Liability for Defamation on Social Media, 52 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 227 (2016), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol52/iss1/15
[39] [2017] EWHC 433 (QB),
[40] https://phys.org/news/2017-05-guilty-libel-facebook-swiss-court.html
[41] The constitutionality or otherwise of criminalization of free speech in these legislations has been discussed elsewhere by the author. See Elvis Asia, Regulation of ‘Fake News’ and the Right to Free Speech, available online at https://www.academia.edu/39579415/REGULATION_OF_FAKE_NEWS_AND_THE_RIGHT_TO_FREE_SPEECH
[42] Guaranteed by section 39 of the 1999 Constitution
[43] See section 45 of the 1999 Constitution
[44] A fundamental principle of copyright law is that copyright does not protect the idea itself, but the way the idea expressed. This means that the fact that a subsequent post is based on the idea expressed in another post does not mean there has been an infringement.
[45] Section 1(1) of the Copyright Act, Cap C28, LFN 2004
[46] Section 1(2)(a)
[47] Section 1(2)(b)
[48] See section 10
[49] See section 11
[50] See Kloe Kardashian’s case supra, note 12.
[51] Regramming refers to the act of screenshotting someones else’s original content, and reposting it. It is often accompanied with the hashtag #regram with acknowledgment of the source.
[52] The 2nd Schedule to the Copyright Act contains the exceptions to copyright control. They include private and non-commercial use, review or reporting of current events, fair dealing, use for parody and caricature etc.
[53]See Prince Alex-Iwu, (2017) “Photo Privacy & Media/Image Rights in Nigeria” available at http://barcode. stillwaterslaw.com/1.1/2017/04/01/photo-privacy-and-mediaimage-rights-in-nigeria/ accessed on 20/10/ 2019
[54]
The right of publicity is properly developmed in jurisdictions like the United
States. the United Kingdom has been conservative in recognizing the right but
have recently invoked the tort of ‘passing off’ in their protection. In Robyn
Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 3,
(“Rihanna”) the English Court of Appeal confirmed a High Court decision which
found that the use of Robyn Fenty’s (the musician popularly known as Rihanna)
image on t-shirts sold in the defendant’s stores, Topshop, amounted to the tort
of passing off as it was likely to mislead a proportion of the public into
believing that Rihanna endorsed the products sold. Given the constitutional
right to privacy, Nigeria courts are more likely to recognize the right on its
own merit. The courts have always been willing to recognize relationships and
rights orchestrated by the ‘mystery of the computer’. The dynamics of social
media will not be an exception. See Anyeabosi V. R.T. Briscoe (Nig) Ltd
(1987) 3 NWLR (pt. 59) 84 and Esso West Africa Inc. V. T. Oyegbola(1969) NMLR
194, Trade Bank Plc v. Chami (2003) 13 NWLR Pt. 836 Pg. 158 at 216-217 and
CONTINENTAL SALES LTD v. R. SHIPPING INC (2012) LPELR-7905(CA)
[i] Elvis. E. Asia is a Senior Counsel in Nigeria. Mr. Elvis can be contacted at elvis.easia@futurelawjournals.com, 09017163850
