e-Payments: CBN retains exclusive ownership of eNaira trademark, court rules

*The Federal High Court. Abuja issues a perpetual injunction restraining eNaira Payment Solutions Limited from presenting itself as the registered owner of the ‘eNaira’ trademark in the West African country, ordering it to drop name henceforth

Isola Moses | ConsumerConnect

Describing the company’s name unregistrable due to its misleading nature, the Federal High Court, Friday, May 22, 2026, in Abuja, FCT, ruled that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has exclusive ownership of the “eNaira” digital currency platform in the country.

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, issued a perpetual injunction restraining eNaira Payment Solutions Limited from presenting itself as the registered owner of the “eNaira” trademark in Nigeria.

Immigration: Why US directs Nigerians, other nationals to return home for Green Card applications –USCIS Spokesman

The Federal High Court also acknowledged that the company had been registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) since 2004, but held that its name, which is closely tied to Nigeria’s sovereignty, was misleading.

Why eNaira is unregistrable by private entities

The Judge stated: “The name chosen by the plaintiff on its incorporation is in the circumstances unregistrable due to the misleading nature of the name, which suggests government patronage.”

Justice Omotosho further noted that available evidence indicated that the Trademark Registry, in a letter dated November 15, 2021, had informed the company of the cancellation and withdrawal of approvals granted for its applications for the “eNaira” name under classes 36 and 42.

The court as well held that the company was notified that “eNaira is a national intellectual property and constitutes a symbol and national asset of Nigeria.”

The court ruling declared that the private firm, which sought to strip the CBN of ownership rights to the eNaira digital platform, has no superior legal claim to the trademark compared to the banking sector regulator in the West African country.

Justice Omotoso ruled: “A party that has no legal right cannot be entitled to an injunction.

“The purport of this is that, prima facie, the plaintiff has no valid trademark to the exclusive use of the eNaira trademark.”

What Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 says

The court equally emphasised that under Section 852(2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), the CAC has the authority to reject or direct a change of name for any company that suggests government affiliation.

The Judge ruled: “The ‘eNaira’ name is so closely linked to the legal tender of Nigeria, which is exclusively controlled by the CBN.

“The plaintiff, with the name ‘eNaira,’ even though it had been incorporated since 2004, has a misleading name.”

The court also held that “an average person on the street is most likely to think that the plaintiff is an agent of the Federal Government or the CBN.

“The proposed business of the plaintiff, which according to the evidence-in-chief of PW-1 is the creation and control of a digital currency on their electronic payment platform, no doubt creates the impression that the plaintiff has the authority of the Federal Government of Nigeria to issue and control a digital form of the Naira.”

The court stated: “A misleading name is a ground for the 3rd defendant (CAC) to direct a company to change its name.”

Justice Omotosho held that the law empowers the CAC to mandate a company to change its name within six weeks of such directive.

“The plaintiff had six weeks to comply with the directive, which was issued on 9th December 2021.

“The plaintiff has, however, not complied with this directive.”

Justice Omotosho, therefore, warned that allowing the firm to retain control of the name would amount to ceding national sovereignty to a private entity.

“Any digital currency with the name ‘eNaira’ will no doubt create the impression that it is an official digital form of the Naira.”

He also held that “the plaintiff cannot assert control over the ‘eNaira’ name or issue it.

“This would be disastrous for the Nigerian economy and will create skepticism among users, as it is not guaranteed by the Central Bank of Nigeria.”

The court declared: “The claims of the plaintiff are therefore bound to fail, while the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants will succeed on the strength of the evidence before this court.

“In the final analysis, this court will rule against the plaintiff, as the claim is incompetent on grounds that it was not brought under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.”

The Judge noted: “Furthermore, the facts and the law are against the plaintiff.

“In contrast, the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants succeed.”

As part of its orders, the court directed the company to immediately adopt a new name that does not include the word “Naira.”

Term ‘Naira’ not exclusive to Nigeria, argues plaintiff’s counsel

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/113/2021, was dismissed, and the court awarded N10 million in costs in favour of the CBN, which had filed a counter-claim.

However, the plaintiff had argued that the CBN’s move to take over a name it had used for over 22 years in international business was a violation of its rights.

Mr. David Ityonyman, counsel to the plaintiff, contended that the term “Naira” was not exclusive to Nigeria.

“Nothing stops India from having a Naira. Also, countries like the U.S. and Canada make use of Dollars.

“None of them has laid claim to the name.”

Ityonyman also contended that “the plaintiff had used the name ‘Naira’ for a long time and enjoyed substantial goodwill before 2021, when the defendant sought to take over the name.”

Kindly Share This Story