H-Medix Pharmacy Limited has filed a counter-affidavit at the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging a committal-to-prison motion brought against it by rival pharmacy chain Max Health over the alleged opening of an H-Medix outlet in Life Camp, Abuja, while the matter was pending before the court.
The counter-affidavit, filed by H-Medix’s counsel, Fredrick Itua, SAN, represents the latest escalation in the multi-million-naira legal battle between the two pharmacy chains a case that raises critical questions about regulatory oversight, competition, monopoly practices, and the limits of business expansion in Nigeria’s pharmaceutical sector.
The dispute before the court centres on Max Health’s allegation that H-Medix went ahead to commission its Life Camp outlet in November 2025 despite the pendency of a suit in which the outlet is a subject of litigation.
Counsel to Max Health, Ola Olanipekun, SAN, had told the court that the opening of the outlet while the case was still before the court amounted to a deliberate act of defiance. On that basis, Max Health filed a motion on notice seeking an order directing the Pharmaceutical Council of Nigeria (PCN) FCT Chairman and H-Medix to show cause why they should not be surcharged, indicted, and/or committed to prison for allegedly tampering with the subject matter of the suit.
The motion specifically targeted the alleged approval granted by the PCN and the subsequent opening and operation of the Life Camp outlet during the pendency of the case. Committal to prison for contempt of court is one of the most severe sanctions available in civil proceedings and is reserved for cases where a party has wilfully disobeyed a court order or tampered with the subject matter of litigation.
In the counter-affidavit deposed to by H-Medix’s Finance Manager, John Polycarp Mommi, the company mounted a robust defence, attacking the foundation of Max Health’s committal application on multiple legal grounds.
The central plank of H-Medix’s defence is that there is no subsisting order of the court restraining it from carrying on its business within Life Camp District or anywhere in Nigeria. Mommi deposed: “The 5th Defendant/Respondent (H-Medix) is not aware of any subsisting order of court restraining it from operating its pharmacy and store outlet within Life Camp District or anywhere in Nigeria.”
This is a critical legal point. Under Nigerian law, committal to prison for contempt can only be ordered where a party has disobeyed a specific, clear, and subsisting order of court. Without such an order, the entire basis for committal proceedings collapses.
Itua, SAN, further submitted that the court’s jurisdiction in the matter had been challenged, and that where jurisdiction is in issue, the court is constrained from entertaining any interlocutory or substantive applications including the committal motion until it has first resolved the jurisdictional question.
This submission invokes one of the most settled principles of Nigerian procedural law: that jurisdiction is the foundation of all judicial proceedings, and that a court must first satisfy itself of its competence to hear a matter before proceeding to entertain any application, however urgent. If the jurisdictional challenge succeeds, every proceeding taken by the court in the matter, including any committal order, would be rendered a nullity.
Itua, SAN, went further to argue that even assuming, without conceding, that H-Medix had tampered with the subject matter of litigation before the court, all the conditions precedent for committal to prison were lacking in Max Health’s application.
The senior lawyer highlighted three specific procedural deficiencies. First, there is no court order ever issued against H-Medix the fundamental prerequisite for any contempt or committal proceeding. Second, there has been no mandatory service of any such court order on H-Medix. Third, Forms 48 and 49 the statutory forms required under Nigerian court rules to initiate committal proceedings were never served on the company.
Forms 48 and 49 are critical procedural requirements in committal proceedings. Form 48 is the notice warning a party that failure to comply with a court order may result in committal to prison, while Form 49 is the actual order for committal. Nigerian courts have consistently held that failure to serve these forms in the prescribed manner is fatal to any committal application, regardless of the merits of the underlying contempt allegation.
“The application has no legs or base to stand. The law is trite that you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand,” Itua, SAN submitted, invoking the famous dictum of the Supreme Court in Macfoy v UAC (1962), which established that a proceeding built on a void foundation is itself void.
“We submit that H-Medix cannot be surcharged, indicted, or committed to prison for tampering with the subject matter of this suit, as the strict procedures which must be followed are lacking,” Itua stated.
H-Medix also accused Max Health of attempting to use the committal motion as a tool of intimidation rather than a legitimate legal remedy. Itua, SAN submitted that Max Health was trying to achieve through intimidation what could only be achieved by a lawful court order, arguing that the motion was aimed at coercing compliance with reliefs that the court had not yet granted.
This submission draws a sharp distinction between two different legal situations: one where a court has issued a specific order and a party has disobeyed it (which can ground contempt proceedings), and another where a party is seeking reliefs that have not yet been granted and attempts to use the threat of committal to effectively enforce orders that do not exist. H-Medix argues that Max Health’s application falls into the latter category.
Itua urged the court to hold that Max Health had failed to prove the allegations of contempt, that the procedure adopted was entirely flawed and unknown to law, that Max Health had not made out a case of contempt against H-Medix, and to dismiss the application for lacking in merit.
The matter has been adjourned for mention at the Federal High Court, Abuja. The date for the next hearing has not been publicly disclosed.
The committal motion is an offshoot of the broader suit filed by Max Health against H-Medix, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), the Pharmaceutical Council of Nigeria (PCN), and other defendants. In the substantive suit, Max Health is seeking an injunction restraining the PCN from approving multiple outlets for H-Medix across Abuja, alleging discrimination and monopolistic practices.