Watercress vs ARCON & Others: Federal High Court Dismisses Watercress’ Injunction Bid

0

The Federal High Court in Lagos has once again thrown its weight behind the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON), dismissing an application for an interlocutory injunction filed by Watercress Hotel International Limited and co-plaintiff Samuel Ayinde against ARCON and the Attorney General of the Federation, and reaffirming, for at least the third time in recent judicial history, the validity and constitutional soundness of ARCON’s regulatory authority over advertising in Nigeria.

The ruling, delivered recently by Hon. Justice Akintayo Aluko in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/12/26, follows a now-established pattern of courts upholding ARCON’s mandate each time it has been challenged. In April 2025, the Federal High Court had ruled in favour of ARCON in the case of Digi Bay Limited (trading as Betway Nigeria) v. ARCON, affirming the Council’s power to regulate digital and social media advertising, including content on Instagram, directed at the Nigerian public.

Months later, in November 2025, a separate Federal High Court matter again confirmed the validity of the ARCON Act, 2022 and the Council’s statutory oversight of advertising communications targeting the Nigerian market in Godec Power Nigeria Ltd. v. ARCON. The Watercress ruling now adds a third judicial endorsement to that record.

In the present case, Watercress Hotel International Limited had approached the Court seeking to restrain ARCON and its agents from taking any further regulatory or enforcement action against the company pending the determination of the substantive suit, particularly in relation to an alleged bench warrant. The Plaintiff’s central argument was that its social media page was private in nature and that publications made on it were an exercise of its constitutional right to freedom of expression, placing them beyond ARCON’s regulatory reach.

The Court rejected that position entirely. It held that the determining factor is not the platform on which content is published, but the nature and purpose of the communication itself, a finding that substantially forecloses the “private platform” argument as a defence against ARCON’s oversight in future cases. The Court further found that the Plaintiff failed to place sufficient and credible evidence before it to substantiate the existence and particulars of the alleged bench warrant it sought to restrain, leaving the application without legal or evidential foundation.

All reliefs sought in the interlocutory application were accordingly refused. It must be noted that this remains a preliminary ruling and not a final judgment as the substantive questions raised by the Plaintiff are yet to be fully ventilated before the Court.

The matter has been adjourned to 26 October 2026 for accelerated hearing, with the Court directing all parties to file and serve outstanding processes within prescribed timelines to ensure the suit is determined expeditiously.