Rate hike: Court orders MultiChoice to produce audited financial report

The Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPC) in Abuja on Tuesday ordered MultiChoice to produce its 2021 audited financial report for breaching the tribunal's restraining order on tariff increases .

A lawyer, Festus Onifade, and the Coalition of Nigeria Consumers had jointly sued MultiChoice - DSTV and GOTV in Nigeria - and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) for the giant's increase in pay-TV subscription rates for its services. and other products.

The court on March 30 granted the ex-parte motion directing the parties to maintain the status quo, pending the decision on the entire lawsuit.

But MultiChoice ignored the restraining order by raising the price of its products and services.

Ruling on certain preliminary objections while handing down a decision in the case, on Tuesday, a three-member panel of the tribunal chaired by Thomas Okosun, ordered the chief executive of Multichoice to appear before it on September 8 with a financial report audited of Pay TV for appropriate penalties to be determined.

"The Managing Director and Directors of 1st Defendant (MultiChoice) are to appear in this Honorable Court with certified copies of their audited financial report for the year 2021," Mr. Okosun said.

The court explained that the audited financial report "will enable the court to determine the appropriate sanction to impose on MultiChoice for disregarding the orders of this honorable court issued in March".

According to Section 51 of the CCPT Act, a body corporate is liable on conviction for contempt to a fine of not less than "100 million naira or 10% of its turnover of the previous year".

Penalty request

In his motion, Mr. Onifade had urged the court to sanction MultiChoice, stating, "MultiChoice has a history of violating court orders."

At a hearing on April 11, the plaintiff said he filed a written address and contempt suit against company management for allegedly ignoring the court order issued on April 30. March.

Mr. Onifade argued that the pay-TV giant in Nigeria breached the March 30 court order, which called on the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.

But Multichoice's lawyer, Jamiu Agoro, argued that because of his motion challenging the court's jurisdiction, "this court must first verify whether it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the motion."

p>

Mr. Agoro maintained that the price-raising agreement was put in place before the March 30 order was issued by the court.

He challenged Mr. Onifade's procedure of initiating contempt proceedings by failing to first serve Forms 48 and 49 in presumptive contempt (MultiChoice) before filing the claim.

Furthermore, Multichoice's attorney argued that since the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the action, his client "cannot be held in contempt of an order he enforced and that this court annuls".

Decision

But ruling on the preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, Mr. Okosun considered that his panel was vested with "competence to hear and decide the action".

Contrary to Mr. Ogoro's argument, the court held that an aggrieved consumer can go to court to seek redress for the violation of his rights" without the Federal Competition and Protection Commission of consumers decides on his request.

“We are of the view that there are no mandatory conditions for an aggrieved consumer to meet before going to court,” Mr. Okosun said.

In the meantime, the judgment on the merits is read at the time of filing of this report.

Background

In the plaintiff's case, Mr. Onifade urged the court to issue an order restraining Multichoice from increasing subscriptions to its television services on April 1, pending a hearing and decision on the motion filed on April 1. March 30.

The court granted the motion ex parte, ordering the parties to maintain the "pre-war status quo".

READ ALSO: Rate Increase: Lawyer asks court to sanction MultiChoice for disobeying order

Pay TV, Multi...