Don't Miss


Home   >   Business   >   Industries   >   Cement labelling: Lafarge asks Court to stop SON from sealing up factory

Cement labelling: Lafarge asks Court to stop SON from sealing up factory

By on September 24, 2014

Lafarge Cement WAPCO Nigeria Plc has asked a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos to restrain the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), its agents, from closing its business premises, following its (SON) recent directive on product labelling and traceability requirements, pending the hearing and determination of the present suit.

Lafarge, a cement manufacturer, which is challenging the power of SON to pre-approve all advertisement/commercials of the plaintiff’s as well as certify block makers in Nigeria, is contending that the directive by SON was confers unfair advantage to its competitors and enthroning monopoly in the cement industry.
The company, which is also contending that it had no complains about the product labelling, also noted that deadline for same was too short, as it required more time to calibrate its machines to achieve same.

The company in an affidavit is support of the suit, averred that SON convened a meeting of stakeholders of the cement manufacturing sector and at the said meeting, the defendant came up with an action plan termed
“The SON’s Directives on Product Labeling and Traceability Requirements, a set of new policies to be observed by cement manufacturers.

“After the July 21, 2014 meeting of stakeholders of cement industry with officials of the defendants, the defendant’s Director-General addressed the media, where he issued a 60 day ultimatum to cement manufacturers to comply with her said directives on product labelling and traceability requirements  and has reiterated its readiness to sanction cement manufacturers for failure to comply with the directives/policies.

“This is further corroborated by the defendant’s letter dated August 5, 2014 which is addressed to the plaintiffs Managing Director. The defendant’s published directives/policies are designed to de-market the plaintiff’s 32.5 grade cement, and confer unfair advantage to the plaintiff’s competitors and enthrone monopoly in the cement industry.

“The defendant in an attempt to confer unfair advantage to the plaintiff’s competitors and enthroning monopoly in the cement industry has arrogated itself to the powers to pre-approve all advertisement/commercials of the plaintiffs as well as certify block makers in Nigeria.

“The plaintiff has reasons to believe that the published policies and directives by the defendants are not within the ambit of their enabling law/statute, hence the substantive suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant.

“The plaintiff has consequently approached this court in order to prevent  the defendant from implementing the said directives as they were issued in violation of/non-compliance with the provisions of the SON Act. The plaintiff respectfully submits that the sole issue arising for determination of this application is: “Whether in the light of the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff has made a case for the grant of this application for interlocutory injunction in this suit.

“The plaintiff submits that this court has the requisite jurisdiction and power to grant the present application in order to preserve the res (subject matter) of this litigation. The “Res” here is the non-implementation of the defendant’s decision on traceability of products, pre-approval of advertisements/commercials as well as the plaintiff’s label on her products. There is also the need to halt the implementation of the defendant’s decision to act as a certifying body to sellers of building materials (especially cement and block makers) pending the determination of this suit.

“The Plaintiff is a producer of cement and therefore, has a right to market and sell its products unhindered by the defendant or any other person.”

 

[This Day]