top of page


Mr. X V. Mr. Jakobus Brink & 3 Ors. NICN/ABJ/464/2016

Miss X V. Teene Todds Day Care Pre-School & 2 Ors. NICN/139/2017

Miss A V. Federal Medical Centre & 2 Ors. NICN/13/2018

Before the case of Mr. X was instituted, he was so apprehensive of the possible discrimination and stigmatization that may attend the disclosure of his identity during trial in court. Besides, Mr. X further requested that he would not want his case to be heard in the open court. Following these, Lawyers Alert filed, alongside Mr. X’s suit, an application (Motion on Notice) for leave of court to prosecute Mr. X’s case under condition of anonymity and confidentiality. The order was granted by the court before proceeding to hear the case itself.

Implications of Order

  • Mr. X’s name is blotted out on all the court’s originating processes by the registry and the pseudonym is adopted on all processes subsequently filed in court in the matter.

  • The press is barred from using the real name of Mr. X in their publications.

  • Certain portions of the trial of the case remain inaccessible to the public.

2 views0 comments


bottom of page