Lawyer Withdraws Case Against MultiChoice, Citing Court Of Appeal Frustration; Tribunal Dismisses DStv, GOtv Price Hike Case

The Nigerian Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal has granted the request to withdraw the case against MultiChoice Nigeria concerning a price hike in GOTV and DSTV subscriptions.

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

Onifade stated that he no longer intends to proceed with the matter, insisting that MultiChoice would leverage the vacation to argue its appeal at the Court of Appeal and frustrate his case.

“I am abandoning this matter. I am withdrawing this case,” he said, explaining he filed the suit to challenge the alleged oppressive attitude of multinationals toward Nigerian consumers.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) lawyer told the tribunal to allow the claimant to withdraw his matter.

Onifade then orally applied to withdraw the suit.

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

“The oral application of the claimant to withdraw this suit is hereby granted. No cost is awarded,” the tribunal ruled.

Initially, Onifade had appeared to be on course for a landmark victory for consumers after the tribunal had fined MultiChoice N150 million and mandated a one-month free subscription to customers for violating interim orders, but MultiChoice appealed and filed for a stay of proceedings.

The tribunal had restrained MultiChoice from increasing its subscription rates pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice filed by Onifade.

A three-member tribunal chaired by Saratu Shafii had ruled in favor of Onifade by temporarily restraining MultiChoice from implementing the impending price increase scheduled to take effect on May 1, 2024, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

However, MultiChoice’s lawyer, Moyosore J. Onigbanjo (SAN), filed a preliminary objection urging the court to decline jurisdiction over the suit filed by Festus Onifade and to strike it out, 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 provided adequate notice regarding the May 1, 2024, TV subscription price increase, not about price regulation or increase.

In its ruling, the three-member panel chaired by Justice Thomas Okosu dismissed MultiChoice’s preliminary objection for disobeying its interim orders and subsequently imposed a 150 million naira administrative penalty on MultiChoice, along with a one-month subscription order against the Pay TV provider.

MultiChoice has filed an appeal against the ruling, arguing that the tribunal erred in its decision.

The company also filed counter-affidavits dated July 12, 2024, providing reasons for its price hike and requesting that the tribunal dismiss the case.

In its affidavits, deposed by Damilola Olatunji, MultiChoice explained that to mitigate the impact of the weakening exchange rate in Nigeria, it was constrained to increase its subscription prices, though it did so to the least affordable extent possible.

The company insisted that it duly notified its customers and regulatory authorities before the increment was effected.

It was stated that the defendant had already filed a notice of appeal dated June 7, 2024, and an application for a stay of execution of the tribunal’s orders made on June 7, 2024, along with a request for all further proceedings before the tribunal to be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.

Onifade urged the court to determine his case in the interest of justice.

At the resumed hearing on Monday, Onibanjo asked the tribunal to adjourn the matter until the Court of Appeal decided on his applications.

He explained that the law dictates that when a tribunal is aware that an application is before the Court of Appeal, it must allow the Court of Appeal to decide.

He argued that Order 6, Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules states that where special circumstances make it impractical for a party to file a suspension of proceedings application at a lower court, the party can apply directly to the Appeal Court for determination.

“The heavens will not fall if the tribunal waits for the Court of Appeal to decide this matter. This tribunal is not an island; it and every court are very powerful but must abide by decided authorities.

“This matter is not personal to anyone. The duty of this tribunal is to do justice according to the law.

“If there is a defect in an appeal, the place to argue is at the Appeal Court and not at the tribunal,” he said, urging the court to adjourn the matter until the Appeal Court decides.

Onifade argued that the call for adjournment by MultiChoice over a pending appeal had been addressed on July 3, 2024, and the tribunal had ruled on it while fixing July 29 for hearing.

Ruling on the applications, the tribunal chair, Thomas Okosu, said while MultiChoice has the right to appeal, the “proper procedures” must be followed by MultiChoice.

He said MultiChoice’s legal team had not shown the special circumstances that restrained it from seeking the tribunal’s leave to suspend its proceedings.

“Whereas we agree that MultiChoice has the right to appeal on a matter before this tribunal, the proper procedures must be followed.

“We have reviewed the positions of Order 6, Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and did not see or find any circumstances that prevented MultiChoice from filing a stay of proceedings and execution before this tribunal.

“In the circumstances, this tribunal has nothing to stay and will therefore proceed to hear and determine this matter,” the judge said, overruling MultiChoice’s submission and stating that the mere filing of an appeal does not amount to a stay of proceedings.

MultiChoice’s lawyer then argued that, based on its rules, the tribunal ought to adjourn for vacation between July and September 2024 and can preside only over urgent matters during vacation.

“This matter is by no means urgent,” Onibanjo said, urging the tribunal to adjourn the matter until after its vacation.

But Onifade asked the tribunal to overrule Onibanjo’s fresh application, arguing that MultiChoice cannot dictate the tribunal’s schedule and decline to hear his matter as scheduled.

In a brief ruling, the judge said he could not disobey the tribunal’s own rule on vacation.

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

It wasn’t this point that Onifade then stated that he no longer intended to proceed with the matter, insisting that MultiChoice would leverage the vacation to argue its appeal at the Court of Appeal and frustrates his case.

Okosu, therefore, adjourned the case to November.