By Lummina Law Firm
26 May 2026
Practical perspective for the decisions ahead.
Introduction
On 26 May 2026, the Lagos High Court delivered a landmark judgment that has significant implications for privacy law, image rights, and data protection practice in Nigeria. The case, Larry Nwabueze v. Nigerian Breweries Plc, centered on the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's image in advertising, and the Court's ruling has been widely described as a timely and important reaffirmation of personal data rights under the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023.
The judgment arrives at a moment when brands, marketers, and event organisers across Nigeria are increasingly capturing and repurposing images of attendees, customers, and members of the public for promotional content o ften without a clear understanding of the legal obligations this creates. This case draws a firm line around what is, and is not, permissible.
Background to the Dispute
The Applicant, Larry Nwabueze, had attended an event where his image was captured. That image was subsequently used by Nigerian Breweries Plc in commercial advertising material without his knowledge or consent. The Applicant approached the Lagos High Court seeking redress, arguing that this unauthorized use of his likeness violated his rights to privacy and to control over his personal data.
Central to the Respondent's defence was the argument that a notice displayed at the event constituted sufficient legal basis for using attendees' images in subsequent marketing and advertising activity. This is a common practice: many events post signage informing attendees that photography or recording will take place and that images “may be used for promotional purposes.”
What the Court Held
- An Image Is Personal Data
The Court affirmed that a person's image constitutes personal data within the meaning of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023. This means that the processing of a person's image — including its capture, storage, and commercial use is governed by the same legal framework that applies to other categories of personal information, such as names, contact details, or biometric data.
- Unauthorized Commercial Use Violates the Right to Privacy
The Court held that the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's image amounts to a violation of the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This elevates the issue beyond a purely statutory or contractual matter into one with constitutional weight, reinforcing that image rights sit within the broader architecture of fundamental human rights protections in Nigeria.
- A Notice at an Event Is Not a Lawful Basis for Processing
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the ruling was the Court's rejection of the argument that a notice displayed at an event could serve as adequate legal justification for using an individual's image in commercial advertising. The Court was clear on several points:
Attending an event is not consent. Mere presence at an event, even where signage is displayed, does not amount to informed, specific, and freely given consent as required for lawful data processing.
Appearing in footage is not endorsement. Being captured in photographs or video at an event does not imply that the individual has agreed to be associated with, or to endorse, a brand or product.
A wall notice does not meet the threshold for lawful processing. Passive signage does not satisfy the standards of transparency, specificity, and genuine choice that data protection law requires before personal data including images can be lawfully processed for commercial purposes.
This finding is significant because it dismantles a widely used industry practice of relying on generic event signage as a blanket authorization for downstream commercial use of attendee images.
Remedies Granted
Having found in favour of the Applicant, the Court granted the following relief:
Immediate removal of the image from all advertising platforms on which it appeared
A perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent from any further use of the image
₦10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) in damages
₦500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) in costs
The scale of the damages award ₦10 million signals that Nigerian courts are prepared to impose substantial financial consequences for violations of image and privacy rights, moving beyond symbolic remedies toward awards that reflect the seriousness of unauthorized commercial exploitation of personal data.
Why This Case Matters
This judgment carries implications well beyond the parties directly involved. It offers clear guidance and a clear warning to a wide range of stakeholders:
For brands and advertisers: Any commercial use of an individual's image must be grounded in a genuine, lawful basis for processing. Relying on assumed consent because someone attended a branded event is legally insufficient.
For event organisers: Signage alone does not discharge an organiser's or sponsor's data protection obligations. Proper consent mechanisms such as signed releases, opt-in forms, or explicit verbal/written consent captured at the point of filming or photography are necessary if images are to be used commercially afterward.
For content creators and marketing teams: Footage or photographs gathered at events cannot be treated as a “free” content library for future advertising campaigns. Each individual whose image is identifiable within that content retains rights over how it is used.
For the broader public: The ruling reinforces that Nigerians have enforceable rights over their own image and likeness, and that the courts are willing to give real teeth to those rights both through injunctive relief and meaningful financial damages.
Broader Legal Significance
The judgment is an important addition to the growing body of Nigerian case law interpreting the NDPA 2023, which was enacted to modernize Nigeria's data protection framework and align it more closely with global standards such as the GDPR. By explicitly classifying images as personal data and linking their misuse to constitutional privacy protections, the Court has:
Strengthened the legal basis for individuals to challenge unauthorized use of their likeness in commercial contexts
Signaled that “implied consent” arguments based on passive notices are unlikely to succeed
Set a precedent that may influence how similar disputes are approached across other Nigerian jurisdictions
Conclusion
Larry Nwabueze v. Nigerian Breweries Plc stands as a clear statement from the Lagos High Court: marketing objectives do not override privacy rights. As data protection enforcement in Nigeria matures, businesses that rely on public event footage, crowd shots, or attendee images for advertising purposes will need to revisit their consent practices carefully. The case underscores a simple but often overlooked principle t hat being seen is not the same as agreeing to be used.
This article is based on publicly reported details of the case and is intended for general informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice.
