Lex Updates Publications

17/05/2023

*The Media Parade Of Seun Kuti And Its Legal Implications*

_By Mustapha Babalola Toheeb_

Media parade essentially means the practice of displaying or communicating to the public, via the media, about an incident or development. In the case of the arrest of a suspect, it is a means of informing the public, usually through publishing on the internet, the identities and offence of these suspects.

_*Follow us on Twitter" *_

By Mustapha Babalola Toheeb Yesterday, photographs of Seun Kuti who had gone to the police station in order to report himself flooded the internet with the photos showing that he was handcuffed. This was also confirmed by his lawyer, Mr Olumide Fusika SAN who claimed that before his client was moved...

28/01/2023

27/01/2023

*TAX AVENUE PRESENTS ITS FIRST EVER TALKSHOW/WEBINAR.*

*TOPIC: OPPORTUNITIES IN TAXATION AND STUDYING TAXATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.*

SPEAKERS: JUMOKE SHALOM AJILEYE, UNIVERSITY OF BOURNEMOUTH,UK)

MARY ADEGBENRO (LLM, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, UNIVERSITY OF BOURNEMOUTH,UK)
DATE: 28th January 2023.
TIME: 2PM PROMPT
Link: http://meet.google.com/bvf-qtti-nhs

This program promises to be interesting as the speakers are going to be sharing their experiences and the opportunities in Taxation particularly for students.

They will also be sharing tips on how to study Taxation in the United Kingdom and any other countries for masters.

It promises to be insightful!!
Be there!!

21/07/2022

Do you know any lawyers and law students ? Please share this exciting opportunity to them

https://thelegalconcierge.org/attend

06/07/2022

THE COURT OF APPEAL, SITTING IN LAGOS HAS UPHELD THE APPEAL FILED BY THE FEDERAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICE (FIRS), AGAINST THE LAGOS HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA.

In 2019, the FHC had declared that the FIRS lacked the powers to collect VAT from the Association’s members.
The FIRS thereafter appealed the judgment at the Court of Appeal. Today judgment has affirmed the authority of FIRS to collect VAT from all taxpayers.
TheNigeriaLawyer recalls that on 3 October 2019, the Federal High Court (“FHC” or “the Court”), sitting in Lagos, upheld the powers of the Lagos State Government to charge and collect Consumption Tax from hotels, restaurants and event centres within the state. The Court also restrained the Federal Government from collecting Value Added Tax (VAT) on goods consumed in hotels, restaurants and event centres. This decision was reached in the case between The Registered Trustees of Hotel Owners and Managers Association of Lagos (Hotel Owners) v Attorney General of Lagos State (AG Lagos).
TheNigeriaLawyer recalls that on 3 October 2019, the Federal High Court (“FHC” or “the Court”), sitting in Lagos, upheld the powers of the Lagos State Government to charge and collect Consumption Tax from hotels, restaurants and event centres within the state. The Court also restrained the Federal Government from collecting Value Added Tax (VAT) on goods consumed in hotels, restaurants and event centres. This decision was reached in the case between The Registered Trustees of Hotel Owners and Managers Association of Lagos (Hotel Owners) v Attorney General of Lagos State (AG Lagos).
According to the Court, Consumption Tax on hotels, restaurants and event centres is in the purview of the State Government based on the 1999 Constitution and the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Act (Taxes and Levies Act). Thus, the provisions of the VAT Act in respect of consumption of goods and services in hotels, restaurants and event centres are inconsistent with the Constitution and the Taxes and Levies Act, and are therefore void.
The VAT Act was introduced in 1993 to impose and charge VAT at 5% on the value of goods and services supplied in Nigeria. The VAT Act is administered by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). Consequently, Hotel Owners have been compliant with the provisions of the VAT Act and have been remitting VAT at 5% to the FIRS.
In 2009, the Lagos State Government enacted the Hotel Occupancy and Restaurant Consumption Law of Lagos State (Consumption Tax Law). The Consumption Tax Law imposes Consumption Tax at 5% on the value of goods and services consumed in hotels, restaurants and event centres within Lagos State. Thus, consumers of goods and services in hotels, restaurants and event centres suffer both Consumption Tax and VAT on the same tax base, amounting to double taxation.
Following this development, the Hotel Owners instituted an action in the FHC, seeking a declaration that the Consumption Tax Law of Lagos State is inoperable and of no effect because the VAT Act has fully covered the field on the subject of Consumption Tax.
The Court, however, ruled in favour of the Lagos State Government upholding the powers of the State Government to charge and collect Consumption Tax. In reaching this decision, the Court relied on the 1999 Constitution and held that Consumption Tax on goods and services consumed in hotels, restaurants and event centres is a residual matter which is within the exclusive legislative competence of a State Government.
The Court further held that under the Taxes and Levies Act, Consumption Tax arising from transactions involving the sale of goods and services in hotels, restaurant or event centres is to be collected by the State Government. The Court also stated that since the Taxes and Levies Act (as amended in 2015) was enacted after the VAT Act of 1993, its provisions have tacitly repealed any provisions of the VAT Act concerning hotels, restaurant and event centres and should thus prevail. The Court therefore restrained the FIRS from collecting VAT on transactions relating to the consumption of goods and services in hotels, restaurants and event places in Lagos.
This Judgment implies that transactions involving supply of goods and services consumed in hotels, restaurants and events centres should not be liable to VAT. However, such transactions should be liable to Consumption Tax at 5%, payable to the State Government.
It is important to note that the FHC, sitting in Abuja, reached a contrary decision in the case between Nigeria Employers Consultative Association & Anor v Kano State Inland Revenue Service in 2018. In that case, the FHC restrained the Kano State Government from imposing Consumption Tax on transactions involving goods and services which are already subject to Value Added Tax. Thus, the Judgment of the FHC, sitting in Lagos, in the Hotel Owners Case has created a clear conflict on the actual position of the FHC on the issue.
Notwithstanding, it is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional powers of the Lagos State Government to enact the Consumption Tax Law in the case between Attorney General of the Federation v Attorney General of Lagos State in 2013. However, while the FHC has taken a further step to restrain the Federal Government from collecting VAT on transactions which are covered by the Consumption Tax Law, the Supreme Court was silent on the validity of the VAT Act with respect to such transactions.
Given the apparent conflicts generated by the FHC’s decisions and the constitutional nature of the issues therein, we expect a higher court to provide additional clarification on this issue in order to curb incidences of multiple taxation in the Nigerian business environment and also to ensure consumers and businesses are clear about their obligations under the law. This is because multiple taxation and uncertainty in the application of our laws are major disincentives to investments and have an overall negative impact on the business environment. This issue therefore needs to be addressed speedily.
In the meantime, taxpayers are to be mindful of this development in the tax administration system and should engage with their consultants to evaluate the implications of this case on their businesses and take necessary steps to operate within the ambits of the applicable laws.
Source: TheNigerialawyer

21/06/2022

WE ARE HIRING!!
This is to inform the general public that Lex Updates Publications is looking for individuals/volunteers who are interested and passionate in Taxation or wish to build a career in tax. Interested candidates should kindly forward their interests via email; [email protected] or Whatsapp (08106244073).

The deadline for submission has been extended from the original date to the 1st of July, 2022.

20/06/2022

HISTORY OF TAXATION IN NIGERIA.

05/06/2022

I was privileged to feature in an interview with Thrivee, a Nigerian personal development brand, where he shared his thoughts on his internship journey and its relevance/benefits to aspiring lawyers cm students in general.

Click the below link to get access to the interview

https://medium.com//how-i-got-into-series-mustapha-babalola-868fa6616bb7

31/05/2022

ALL THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE OGA SABINUS THREATENED LAWSUIT AGAINST GALA AND PEAK MILK.

Famous comedian and skit maker Chukwuemeka Ejekwu, also known as Oga Sabinus, has threatened to sue Friesland Foods, the makers of the Peak milk brand, and UAC Foods, the makers of the sausage roll brand Gala, over the unauthorised usage of his trademark. Friesland Foods and UAC Foods are both in the business of producing dairy products.
Below is all that you need to know about the legal notice.
Oga Sabinus, as he is fondly called, is demanding that Friesland and UAC pay him compensation and damages in the amount of one billion and one hundred million naira, respectively, for the use of the catchphrase "something hooge" in an advertisement posted on its social media handle and for the use of his picture in an ad campaign by both companies. Sabinus, through his attorney, issued a warning that he will file a lawsuit against the brands if they did not comply with the legal notice within two weeks of the date it was received.
A look at the court papers shows that the pre-suit notice dated May 27 2022, and signed by his lead counsel Mr Stanley Alieke, the content creator demanded a payment of N500m for the alleged unauthorised use of his intellectual property and another 500m for damages for the “emotional, physical, psychological and mental trauma our client has suffered for the trademark theft and the infringement of his intellectual rights property”.
In the notice, the comedian pointed out that a company belonging to Peak Milk, Friesland Food Wamco Nigerian PLC, used his trademarked slogan “Something Hooge” to advertise and promote their product, Peak Milk.

He pointed out that an advertisement posted on Peak Milk Nigeria's verified Instagram account milk on May 24 2020, used his slogan, which he had trademarked on November 26 2021, under the FILE NUMBER: NG/TM/O/2021/48316.
The legal notice stated, "Our client briefed us, and we believe the same to be accurate that your Company, Friesland Foods Wamco Nigeria Plc, used a trademarked slogan 'Something Hooge' for the promotion of your Peak Milk product."
The legal notice stated, "Our client briefed us and we believe the same to be true that your Company, Friesland Foods Wamco Nigeria Plc, used a trademarked slogan 'Something Hooge' for the promotion of your Peak Milk product."
It continued, “The advert which was made on the Peak Milk Nigeria verified Instagram page (peak_milk) was posted on May 24 2022, which was used to promote the Peak National Breakfast Week.”
“It will interest you to know that the phrase ‘something hooge’, which was popularised by our client, has been trademarked and legally reserved as his intellectual property by the Federal Ministry of Trade and Investment.”
“The post gathered massive traffic and engagements and attracted huge followership to your page, which only happened because the picture of our client was used for the promotion and advert.”
The content creator also threatened legal action against UAC Food Ltd, the company that produces gala sausage, for using his likeness and other intellectual products to advertise their product.

Sabinus revealed that UAC Food on Instagram posted on May 23 2022, with his “picture”. He further noted that the post, which was his cartoon likeness, was captioned, “the way I calculate everything in my life”.
The notice to UAC Foods read dated May 25 read, “Your company UAC Food Ltd. has been using the brand picture and other intellectual properties of Sabinus to make adverts for your Gala sausage roll without the consent or authorisation of our clients.”
He gave both companies 14 working days to meet his demands or meet him in court.
Source:
1. Skitmaker Sabinus sues peak for using trademark, something hooge. https://guardian.ng/life/skit-maker-sabinus-sues-peak-for-using-trademark-something-hoog. Accessed on 30th of May, 2022.
2. Why comedian Oga Sabinus slammed Friesland, UAC Foods with respective N1 billion, N100 million claims. https://nairametrics.com/2022/05/30/why-comedian-oga-sabinus-slammed-friesland-uac-foods-withrespective-n1-billion-n100-million-claims accessed on 30th of May, 2022.

20/05/2022

The Nigerian Senate passed the Arbitration and Mediation Bill ("the Bill") on Tuesday, May 10, 2022, repealing the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Chapter A.18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, which took effect on March 14, 1988. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria must now sign the bill.
With the ever-changing scene of international arbitration, international trade, and foreign investment, Nigeria was long overdue for a modern arbitration and mediation law that reflected the times' complexity. Understandably, a thirty-four (34) year-old statute is incapable of fully addressing today's complex arbitration challenges.
The following improvements are included in Bill's innovations:
1. If the material in an electronic communication is available and usable for future reference, it can now be used to construct an arbitration agreement.
2. When no number of arbitrators is given, the default is currently one (1) arbitrator.
3. When a party requests urgent relief, emergency arbitration is permitted.
4. The provisions on the issuing of interim measures of protection by courts and the recognition and implementation of temporary orders issued by a Tribunal were expressly incorporated.
5. It allows arbitrations to be consolidated.
6. It allows parties to connect together.
7. The recognition of foreign arbitral awards is explicitly codified.

08/04/2022

All that you need to know about Tax Avenue.

03/04/2022

Lex Updates Publications launches Tax Avenue.

Ever since oil was discovered in Nigeria, we've relied on it heavily as the only source of revenue. The reality now is that we can no longer rely on oil as our source of revenue going by its dwindling nature. That takes us to Tax! Yes, the government is banking on Tax and heavily relies on it as our new source of income. Remember the fierce battle between the Federal and State Government on who is to be collecting Value Added Tax which is still in court. It shows the future is Tax! Tax is the new oil!

That's why Lex Updates Publications led by the multiple award winning writer, Mustapha Babalola Toheeb is introducing "Tax Avenue".

Tax Avenue is another initiative of Lex Updates Publications which is aimed at raising the awareness on tax and taking its gospel to the streets of all social media platforms.

The initiative is for all tax enthusiasts from all walks of life.

The activities of Tax Avenue would be featured on all Lex Updates Publications social media handles from Instagram, Facebook and Telegram.

24/03/2022

LAW HISTORY SERIES: THE TEARS OF ANGUISH ONCE SHED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA— THE CASE OF BIOBAKARUMA DEGI EREMIENYO & ORS V PEOPLES’ DEMOCRATIC PARTY (2021)16 NWLR (Pt.1800)387.
By Mustapha Babalola Toheeb.
Good day, everyone. I welcome you to this year’s first edition of our Law History Series, which was established in 2020. The aim of this initiative has always been about unearthing unknown facts in the legal profession; discussing historical events in the legal profession, and also celebrating our legal luminaries. In this edition, I will be narrating the story behind the tears of anguish shed by the Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court awarded the highest amount of cost against a lawyer in the history of the judiciary and the legal profession. We might ask ourselves, “what could have led the Supreme Court to shed tears of anguish and therefore slam the counsels with a hefty cost?”
Well, relax and sip a tea, as you journey into the multiverse of refined knowledge.
I present to you all, the celebrated case of Biobakaruma Degi Eremienyo & Ors v PDP. The matter began at the Federal High Court, where the court had disqualified Mr Lyon and his running mate from contesting in the Bayelsa State Gubernatorial Elections. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the trial court’s decision was set aside. The matter was later brought before the Supreme Court, where the apex court reaffirmed the decision of the trial court which is to the effect that Mr David Lyon and his running mate are not constitutionally qualified to take part in the Bayelsa State Gubernatorial Elections.
Meanwhile, being the apex court of the land, the focus of this paper is going to be mainly on the Supreme Court’s decision. Enjoy.
It all started when the Supreme Court removed David Lyon, the winner of the Bayelsa Gubernatorial elections, and the PDP candidate who emerged as the 1st runner up was pronounced as the constitutionally recognized winner of the election, after the winner of the polls, David Lyon, was disqualified on qualification basis.
After the Supreme Court gave its pronouncement on this matter, the APC and Mr. David Lyon decided to employ the legal services of legal luminaries such as Chief Afe Babalola, SAN, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, amongst other lawyers.
The lawyers approached the Supreme Court with an application for a review of its decision. In their arguments, they asserted that the court had no jurisdiction to have entertained the appeal in the first place and that the suit was first filed at the Federal High Court as a pre-election matter, which is the foundation of the matter that its appeal got to the apex court. Remember, it is a trite law and has been said several times that the Supreme Court’s decisions are final with the effect that the court cannot review its decision except in some exceptional instances. This assertion is in line with the decision of the Court in the case of Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya [1989] 13 NWLR (Pt.109) 250 at page 275A
The Supreme Court, after considering the application, gave its ruling against the Applicant. It was Justice Amina Augie JSC, who read the judgment on behalf of the seven-man panel; she said:
With tears in my eyes, I cannot believe that in my lifetime, I would see very senior members of the bar bring applications of this nature to this court which are aimed at desecrating the sanctity of this court, violating the principles and decisions of this court and destroying the esteem on which this court is held.
The applications are vexatious, they are a frivolous and gross abuse of court process. In the circumstances, the two applications are hereby dismissed, and the cost of N10 million each is awarded against the first, second, and third applicants respectively in favour of the first, second, and third respondents to be paid personally by their respective counsels.
They have not pointed out any accidental slip or omission in the said judgment or shown this court any part of the said judgment that needs to be varied to give effect to its intention.
There must be an end to litigation, this is the final court of the land and is well settled that decisions of this court are final.
It is final in the sense of finality, it is final forever and only legislation can alter it. The decision of this court in appeal number SC/1/2020 is final for all ages; it is final in the real sense of the word-final and no force on earth can get this court to shift from its decision regarding the Bayelsa state election appeal (emphasis mine).
One of the implications of this pronouncement is that Chief Afe Babalola, who represented Mr. Lyon and Degi-Eremieoyo, his running mate, (first and second Applicants), therefore, is to pay N20 million, while Chief Olanipekun SAN who represented the APC (third Applicant), is to pay N10 million.
Never has it been recorded in the country's history that a court awarded such a mouth-watering amount as costs against counsels, and the above-mentioned costs of thirty million Naira are regarded as the highest amount of costs ever to be awarded against counsels in a single case.
I guess we have been able to learn one or two things from this story and also the most important fact, which is the finality of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Mustapha Babalola Toheeb writes from Kano, Nigeria. To reach him, email: [email protected] or contact/WhatsApp: +2348106244073
Sources
1. Biobakaruma Degi Eremienyo & Ors v PDP (2021)16 NWLR (Pt.1800)387

20/03/2022

The law is settled, like the water of Babylon that the act or practice of filing letter of adjournment in the various High Courts and the National Industrial Court in the light of the Supreme Court decision in REGISTERED TRUSTEES, P.C.N. V. ETIM (2017) 13NWLR (Pt.1581) 1, is very much legally justified because the above-mentioned courts' rules contain a provision stipulating such practice.

That can't be applicable to Magistrate Courts and other lower courts unless and untill such practice is provided in their court rules.

14/03/2022

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OR JUDICIAL RASCALITY?
By Mustapha Babalola Toheeb.

The Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Honourable Justice Inyang Ekwo, ordered the sack of Engineer David Nweze Umahi and Dr Eric Kelechi Igwe, the Governor and Deputy Governor of Ebonyi State, respectively, on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, while delivering judgment in Suit Number FHC/ABJ/CS/920/2022 filed by the People’s Democratic Party.
The court's decision is based on its interpretation that votes obtained during elections belong to the Political Party that sponsored the candidate, as stated in Section 221 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 Constitution (as amended). According to the court, the Governor and his Deputy cannot constitutionally transfer votes gained under the PDP platform to the APC, their new political home, because they defected from the political party through which they were elected. By no stretch of the imagination, section 221 of the Constitution can be read to indicate that votes cast in an election belong to political parties. According to this provision, only political parties can canvass votes for any candidate in an election. Simply put, canvassing implies asking for or seeking support. The responsibility of the Political Party is to beg for votes on behalf of its candidate because the language of the Constitution is so plain and unequivocal. A benefit received on someone's behalf belongs to the person on whose behalf it was secured, not to anybody else.
The question of whether the office of Governor or Deputy Governor of a State becomes vacant when the holder of the office decamps from the Political Party on whose platform he was elected is central to the debate, and it can only be resolved once we figure out who owns the vote: the political party or the candidate.
A brief examination of the views expressed by legal luminaries across the country reveals two distinct schools of thought on the subject. First, a school believes that the Political Party owns all of the votes cast during the election. The argument that votes belong to political parties was upheld in the decision of WADA & ORS v. BELLO & ORS (2016) LPELR-47015(SC). The Supreme Court ruled in this case as follows:
I think that the decision of this Court in Amaechi v. INEC (supra), encompasses the situation created by the death of the 2nd respondent’s candidate. The decision finds support in Section 221 of the Constitution (supra) hereunder reproduced: “S.221: No association, other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or the election expenses of any candidate at an election.” A political party is an abstraction. It has to canvass for votes through its members as agents; in the same way, it contests, wins, or loses elections through a candidate it nominates who acts as its agent. There is no provision for independent candidates. The candidate nominated to contest at an election by his party acts as an agent of his party. He is, as it were, an agent of a disclosed principal and as far as third parties are involved, benefits and liabilities accruing to the candidate (as agent) belong to his party (the disclosed principal).
If an agent (candidate) of the party dies or withdraws from the contest, the political party can substitute the dead candidate or the candidate who has withdrawn from the election with another candidate (agent) subject to the provisions of the Act. There is continuity as the new candidate starts and continues from where the previous candidate stopped.
As a result, the vehicle, which is the political party, continues to move even though the steering wheel may be passed from person to person to keep the car on track.
The opposing school of thought, on the other hand, believed that the votes belonged to the candidate, and also the appellate courts have often concluded that votes cast in an election belong to a candidate, not to the political party, which only serves as a vehicle for enthroning candidates. They advocated that voters cast votes for candidates rather than political groups. According to this notion, a candidate will benefit from the votes he earned during the election even if he later abandons the political party that backed him during the campaign. Of fact, there are a lot of court decisions that support this point of view. The well-known Atiku case is an example of this. In AG FEDERATION & ORS v. ABUBAKAR & ORS (2007) LPELR-3(SC), the former Vice President's seat was declared vacant. Still, the Supreme Court unwillingly maintained that his seat was not vacant on a very narrow ground (SC).
The court agreed that abandoning the sponsoring political party was wrong, but that the National Assembly or House of Assembly, depending on the case, should have the power to remove the President or Governor from office. This judgement does not address the issue of who owns the votes cast in the election and what occurs if the victorious party and the candidate disagree or disagree about who owns those votes. Because the PDP and Umahi are battling over who owns the votes, the claim that the court has no jurisdiction over removal or impeachment procedures is irrelevant in this case.
In the case of NGIGE V. AKUNYILI (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 343 @ 357-376, the court held in that case that:
“…it is my considered view that the Appellant in relying on the provision quoted above (section 211 of the Constitution), has conveniently lost sight of the underlined words which show that a political party canvasses for votes on behalf of the candidate. In other words that a political party is nothing more than an agent of the candidate in gathering votes for an election. It is my further view that is against the backdrop of this, that the Electoral Act (Supra) requires the candidate (and not the party of the candidate) that has the highest number of votes at an election to be declared as the winner of the said election and further provides for the means of challenging the return of the candidate (and not his political party…”.
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal in the case of NWANKWO & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2019) LPELR-48862(CA) held thus:
“…It is trite that it is only a natural person that can be lawfully declared and returned as a winner of an election. The Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) only contemplates the declaration and return of a candidate in an election and not a political party”.
In C.P.C. v OMBUGADU (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1385), the court stated unequivocally that individuals, not political parties, win elections.
In HARUNA v. APC & ORS (2019) LPELR-47777(CA), the Court of Appeal held thus amongst several others:
“In other words, parties do not contest, win or lose election directly; they do so by the candidates they sponsored and before a person can be returned as elected by a tribunal or court, that person must have fully participated in all the stages of the election starting from nomination to the actual voting.” Per UGO, J.C.A. (Pp. 12-27, Paras. F-F).
The court further held that:
“The implication of section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) is that while a candidate at an election must be sponsored by a political party, the candidate who stands to win or lose the election is the candidate and not the political party that sponsored him” Per UGO, J.C.A. (Pp. 12-27, Paras. F-F).
As a result, the Amaechi case has been overtaken by the 2010 modification to the Electoral Act and recent Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, which have now vested the votes in the candidate rather than the political part.
In reacting to this landmark judgement, some have described the judgement of the Federal High Court as what we call “judicial activism” while some see it as “judicial rascality.” In the meantime, we await the verdict of the appellate courts on this matter, as their decisions would determine whether the decision of the Federal High Court was an act of judicial activism or a judicial rascality.
But before then, God bless Nigeria!
Mustapha Babalola Toheeb writes from Kano, Nigeria. To reach him, email: [email protected] or contact/WhatsApp: +2348106244073

19/02/2022

WOW

J.P. Morgan opened up an "Onyx lounge" in the metaverse on Tuesday, a virtual lounge in the blockchain-based world of Decentraland.