The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has said requirement of notice to a data subject is dispensed with once there is a legal obligation.
The Court took the above position in a fundamental right enforcement suit filed by one John Ikemenogo against Promasidor & Ors.
In the suit brought pursuant to Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the relevant provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, (NDPA) 2023, and Order 2 of the Fundamental Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 the Applicant urged the court to declare that the release of his bank statement by the Respondents who are his Data Controllers to the Police without prior notice to him was a breach of his right to privacy.
The Applicant’s case was that the release of his bank statement breached the provisions of Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the NDPA. The crux of his argument in his written address in support of the application is that he has a right under the Act to be notified of every processing activities carried out on his personal data by his data controllers and where there is no legal obligation, his right to consent to such processing is guaranteed and protected.
In response to the Application, the Respondents presented a court order obtained from a magistrate court from Oshogbo and a letter of request from the police for the Applicant’s bank statement.
In response, the applicant submitted that according to the Act, reliance on legal obligation extinguishes his right to consent, but not his right to notice. He sighted relevant provisions of the Act which presents the information that must be included in the notice to be issued to a data subject where the data controller is to rely on legal obligation to process his personal information.
Delivering his judgment, Hon. Justice Faji of the Federal High Court upheld the submission of the Applicant on the requirement of notification to the data subject prior to processing his personal information. The Court also agreed with the Applicant that the notice was not issued but held that the Respondents had a duty to obey a subsisting order of court. He also held that the Applicant did not challenge the order of court. He subsequently dismissed the Applicants application and awarded cost of N200,000 in favour of the Respondents.