GOTV and DSTV price hike: Court grants lawyers’ request to withdraw case

In a dramatic development, the Nigerian Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal has granted an application to dismiss the case against MultiChoice Nigeria over the increase in subscription prices for GOTV and DSTV.

This follows the sudden decision by the lawyer who filed the case, Festus Onifade, to withdraw his case against the pay-TV provider.

Onifade stated that he no longer intended to pursue the matter, and stated that MultiChoice would use the dismissal to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal and have the case dismissed.

“I am dismissing the matter. I am withdrawing the case,” he said, explaining that he filed the lawsuit to challenge the multinational company’s alleged repressive attitude towards Nigerian consumers.

Attorneys for the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) asked the court to allow the plaintiffs to withdraw their case.

Onifade then filed an oral application to withdraw the lawsuit.

MultiChoice’s lawyer, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN) said he had no objection to the plaintiff’s request to withdraw.

“The plaintiff’s oral request to withdraw this lawsuit is hereby granted. No costs are imposed,” the court ruled.

Initially, Onifade appeared to be on track to secure a major consumer win after the court fined MultiChoice N150 million and imposed a one-month free subscription for customers who violated the interim order, but MultiChoice appealed and applied for a stay of proceedings.

The court has restrained MultiChoice from increasing its subscription rates pending the hearing and determination of the proposed notice filed by Onifade.

A three-member tribunal chaired by Saratu Shafii has ruled in favour of Onifade by interim restraining MultiChoice from implementing the forthcoming price increase scheduled to take effect on 1 May 2024, pending the hearing and determination of the proposed notice.

However, MultiChoice’s counsel, Moyosore J. Onigbanjo (SAN), filed a preliminary objection urging the court to decline jurisdiction over the suit filed by Festus Onifade and dismiss it, arguing that a similar price dispute case had previously been decided in favor of his client.

Onifade argued that the issue before the court was whether MultiChoice Nigeria gave adequate notice of the increase in TV subscription prices on 1 May 2024, not whether regulation or the price increase.

In its ruling, the three-member panel chaired by Justice Thomas Okosu dismissed MultiChoice’s initial objection for failing to comply with the interim order and then imposed an administrative fine of N150 million on MultiChoice, along with a one-month subscription order against the Pay TV provider.

MultiChoice has appealed against the ruling, arguing that the court erred in its decision.

The company also filed a counter-affidavit dated July 12, 2024, giving reasons for the price increase and asking the court to dismiss the case.

READ ALSO: Nigerians mock Multichoice as pay TV operator complains of 18% drop in DStv subscribers

In a written statement submitted by Damilola Olatunji, MultiChoice explained that in order to mitigate the impact of the weakening exchange rate in Nigeria, it was forced to increase subscription prices, although the increase was made as cheaply as possible.

The company insisted that it notified customers and regulatory authorities before the increase took effect.

It was stated that the defendant had filed an appeal dated June 7, 2024, and an application for suspension of the implementation of the appellate court decision filed on June 7, 2024, along with an application for all further proceedings in the appellate court to be suspended pending the appeal decision.

Onifade urged the court to decide his case in the interests of justice.

At a further hearing on Monday, Onibanjo asked the court to postpone the matter until the Court of Appeal decides on his application.

He explained that the law provides that when a tribunal becomes aware that an application is being made to the Court of Appeal, it must authorise the Court of Appeal to decide.

He stated that Article 6, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal states that where special circumstances make it impracticable for a party to apply for a stay of proceedings in a lower court, that party may apply directly to the Court of Appeal for a determination.

“The sky will not fall if the court waits for the Court of Appeal to decide this matter. This court is not an island; this court and every court is very powerful but must obey the authority that has been established.

“This matter is not anyone’s personal business. The task of this court is to uphold justice according to the law.

“If there is a flaw in the appeal, the place to argue is in the Court of Appeal and not in the court of first instance,” he said, urging the court to postpone the matter until the Court of Appeal decides.

Onifade argued that MultiChoice’s request for a stay on the pending appeal had been dealt with on July 3, 2024, and the court had decided it while fixing July 29 for hearing.

In his ruling, appeal court president Thomas Okosu said that while MultiChoice had the right to appeal, “proper procedures” should have been followed by MultiChoice.

He said MultiChoice’s legal team had not shown any special circumstances that prevented it from seeking court permission to stay the trial.

“Given that we agree that MultiChoice has the right to appeal a matter to this court, the proper procedures must be followed.

“We have reviewed the position of Order 6, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, and do not see or find any circumstances that prevent MultiChoice from applying for a stay of proceedings and execution before this court.

“In these circumstances, this court has no reason to stay and will therefore proceed to hear and decide the matter,” the judge said, rejecting MultiChoice’s contention and stating that the mere filing of an appeal did not constitute a stay of proceedings.

MultiChoice’s lawyers then argued that, under its rules, the court should postpone hearings for the holiday period between July and September 2024 and could only preside over urgent matters during the holiday period.

“This matter is not urgent at all,” Onibanjo said, urging the court to postpone the matter until the end of the trial.

But Onifade asked the court to dismiss Onibanjo’s new application, arguing that MultiChoice could not dictate the court’s schedule and refused to hear his matter as scheduled.

In his brief ruling, the judge said he could not break court rules on holidays.

“Therefore, this matter must be postponed,” Okosu said, rescheduling the hearing of the case to November.

It was not at this point that Onifade then stated that he no longer intended to pursue the matter, insisting that MultiChoice would use the dismissal to lodge its appeal with the Court of Appeal and have the case thrown out.

Therefore, Okosu postponed the case until November.

By: Babajide Okeowo

GOTV, DSTV price hike: Court grants lawyer’s request to drop case first appeared on Latest Nigeria News | Headlines from Ripples Nigeria.