By Correspondent in Abuja.
A legal practitioner, Festus Onifade, has urged the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, to impose sanctions on MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, operators of DStv and GOtv, for allegedly increasing subscription rates, despite a pending appeal on the matter.
In a motion on notice filed on July 4 and dated July 1, Onifade asked the appellate court to restrain MultiChoice from implementing any further tariff hikes pending the determination of the appeal in suit number: CA/ABJ/CV/1363/2022.
He is also seeking a declaration that the continued price increments by the pay-TV company during the pendency of the appeal “undermine the integrity and sanctity of this honourable court,” describing the actions as “unreasonable, illegal, and unlawful.”
Onifade further urged the court to compel the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to monitor compliance with any restraining order that may be granted.
He also demanded N20 million in damages for alleged breach of his consumer rights arising from the tariff increases.
Our correspondent reports that MultiChoice had earlier approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) in a suit marked CCPT/OP/1/2022, delivered on September 6, 2022.
The respondents in the appeal are Onifade, the Coalition of Nigeria Consumers, and the FCCPC, listed as 1st to 3rd respondents, respectively.
In its notice of appeal, MultiChoice argued that the CCPT erred in law when it held that an aggrieved consumer could directly approach the tribunal without first lodging a complaint with the FCCPC, as provided under Sections 47 and 146 of the FCCP Act, 2018.
The company also challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction, insisting that the failure of the 1st and 2nd respondents to meet the statutory preconditions for filing the suit rendered the proceedings invalid.
MultiChoice is also contesting the tribunal’s ex-parte order of March 30, 2022, which restrained the company from increasing its subscription rates, arguing that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and ought to have vacated the interim order.
The company is therefore seeking four reliefs, including an order to set aside both the interim order and the final judgment of September 6, 2022, and an order allowing the appeal in its entirety.
However, Onifade contended, in his motion, that MultiChoice had violated existing court orders by repeatedly increasing its subscription rates while the appeal was pending.
In a sworn affidavit, he noted that the tribunal had earlier granted an order stopping any price hikes during the pendency of the matter, which MultiChoice allegedly flouted.
He warned that the company’s actions could render any judgment by the appellate court nugatory.
“The appellants have continuously altered the subject matter of the litigation without the court’s leave,” he stated.
In his written address, Onifade emphasized that parties in a pending appeal are legally bound to maintain the status quo, especially where the appeal directly relates to the subject of the dispute.
He stressed that the integrity of the appellate court would be undermined if MultiChoice is allowed to continue with its price adjustments unchecked.
The legal practitioner said his 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 was yet to fixed a date for hearing of the case as at the time of the report.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
