*Festus Onifade, a legal practitioner and consumer, prays the Court of Appeal, in Abuja, to sanction MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, operator of DSTv and GOTv, over alleged continuous increments in tariffs for its products and services in the West African country

Isola Moses | 绿帽献妻

Amid the pending court appeal by the pay-TV company, Festus Onifade, a legal practitioner and consumer, has petitioned the Court of Appeal, in Abuja, FCT, to sanction MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, operator of DSTv and GOTv products over alleged continuous increments in tariffs for its subscription packages.

Onifade further prayed the court to compel the company to maintain the status quo until the case is decided in the Nigerian appellate court.

Besides, he sought a declaration that MultiChoice Nigeria’s incessant price increases during and pending the appeal really 鈥渦ndermines the integrity and sanctity of this honourable court, and therefore, is unreasonable, illegal and unlawful.鈥�

绿帽献妻 reports MultiChoice Nigeria had sued Onifade, Coalition of Nigerian Consumers, and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to Appeal Court as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

The appeal followed the judgment of the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) in suit marked: CCPT//OP/1/2022 delivered on Sept. 6, 2022.

The pay-TV firm in a notice of appeal September 6, 2022, argued that the tribunal erred in law when it held that an aggrieved consumer need not approach the Commission with its complaint before filing an action before it (tribunal) in line with the provisions in Section 47 and 146 of FCCP Act, 2018.

The company as well contended that the tribunal erred in law when despite the failure of the Ist and 2nd respondents to fulfil the condition precedent to activation of the tribunal鈥檚 jurisdiction, held that the panel (tribunal) had jurisdiction to entertain and determine the action.

MultiChoice further argued that the tribunal erred in law when notwithstanding its lack of jurisdiction to entertain the substantive suit, refused to set aside its ex-parte order made March 30, 2022.

The ex-parte order had restrained the company from increasing its subscription rates pending the determination of the matter.

The appellant, therefore, sought four reliefs, including an order allowing the appeal.

It prayed the court for an order holding that the tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the substantive suit.

MultiChoice equally sought an order setting aside the ex-parte order of the CCPT made March 30, 2022, and an order vacating the judgment made September 6, 2022.

Onifade, however, in his motion in respect of the appeal number: CA/ABJ/CV/1363/2022 file by the company, sought an order restraining MultiChoice from further increasing the prices of its products and services, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

The motion on notice, dated July 1, was filed on July 4 by the lawyer.

He sought an order restraining the firm from taking any step(s) that may negatively affect his rights pending the hearing and final determination of the appeal.

Besides, he sought an order compelling the FCCPC to monitor compliance, and a demand for N20 million in damages for what he described as a breach of his consumer rights 鈥渁s a result of the unlawful increments during the pendency of this appeal.鈥�

The lawyer, in the affidavit he deposed to, averred the tribunal had earlier granted an order restraining MultiChoice from increasing prices while the matter was pending.

However, the company allegedly disregarded the order, and proceeded with multiple increments, including during the pendency of the current appeal.

Onifade stated: 鈥淭he Appellants have continuously altered the subject matter of the litigation without the court鈥檚 leave.”

Motion to protect sanctity of court process, uphold consumer rights 鈭�Lawyer

The legal practitioner opined that MultiChoice鈥檚 actions risk rendering any future judgment by the appellate court futile.

In his written address, Onifade also emphasised that it is a well-established principle in law that parties must maintain the status quo during the pendency of an appeal, especially when the appeal is directly tied to the action being challenged.

He argued: 鈥淭he purpose is to prevent the subject matter of the litigation from being wasted, damaged or altered in a way that would make it impossible to effectively enforce the outcome of the appeal.”

Onifade equally, emphasised that the integrity of the appellate court would be undermined, if MultiChoice is allowed to continue with its price adjustments unchecked in the Nigerian pay-TV ecosystem.

According to him, the motion would not prejudice the company but rather serve to protect the sanctity of the court and uphold consumer rights during the judicial process.

The court, however, is yet to fix a date for hearing of the case as of the time of filing the report.

Kindly Share This Story