Broadcasting
Court Adjourns Ruling in Suit Challenging DStv’s New Rates
A Federal High Court in Lagos has further adjourned till May 28, 2015 to rule on the preliminary objection to a suit seeking the reversal of the recent 20 per cent increment on DStv subscription rate.
Two Lagos-based legal practitioners, Osasuyi Adebayo and Oluyinka Oyeniji, had filed the class action on behalf of themselves and all other DStv subscribers across the country.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order of the court restraining MultiChoice, the operator of DStv, from implementing the 20 per cent increment on DStv subscription rate which began on April 1, 2015.
But in opposition to the suit, MultiChoice, through its counsel, Mr. Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), had filed a preliminary objection, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and the competence of the plaintiff’s suit.
Following arguments from the parties on May 5, 2015, the presiding judge, Justice C.J. Aneke, had adjourned till Tuesday, May 21, to deliver ruling.
The ruling, which was ready, could however not be delivered on Tuesday, as a human rights lawyer, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, who had earlier sought to join the suit as a co-plaintiff, brought a fresh application seeking to opt out.
Adegboruwa had urged the court to allow him withdraw before the ruling so as not to be bound by the pronouncement of the court.
Both Mr. Yemi Salma, who appeared for the original plaintiffs and Mr. A.A. Kelani, counsel for the second defendant, the National Broadcasting Commission, said they were not opposed to Adegboruwa’s move to withdraw from the matter.
But counsel for MultiChoice, Mr. M.K. Adesina, said he was opposed to the hearing of Adegboruwa’s application because it was not yet ripe for hearing.
Adesina, who said he was only served with the application two days before and had not filed a reply, insisted that the business of the court on Tuesday was to rule on the preliminary objection, saying that every other thing must wait till after the ruling.
But Adegboruwa said he had already sought an abridgement of time to hear his application, adding that it would amount to reading the mind of the court if he agreed to wait till the ruling was delivered.
“My Lord, I object to the submission by my learned friend, Mr. Adesina, that this application can only be taken after the ruling because that will be like reading the mind of the court; the ruling of this court could go one way or the other and I don’t want to be bound by it; that’s why I have come before your Lordship to withdraw,” Adegboruwa argued.
Upon hearing out the parties, Aneke adjourned till May 28 to hear Adegboruwa’s application to opt out and to rule on MultiChoice’s preliminary objection.
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to compel the NBC to regulate the activities of MultiChoice so as to prevent what they described as arbitrary increment in subscription rates.
They specifically want an implementation of the pay-per-view scheme in Nigeria, whereby subscribers would only pay for programmes they watched, as was being done in other parts of the world where MultiChoice operated.
But MultiChoice, through its lawyer, Onigbanjo, argued that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, adding that a court did not have the power to regulate the price of services that a business was offering to its customers.
“My Lord, the country, Nigeria, operates a free market economy; neither the government nor the court can regulate prices. How do you now say, for instance, that one bread is more expensive than the other and then ask the court to order the baker of the more expensive bread to go out of the market?,” Onigbanjo said.
He pointed the attention of the court to MultiChoice’s conditions or terms of agreement, especially clauses 40 and 41 stating that “Multichoice Nigeria may, from time to time, change the fees payable to Multichoice Nigeria for the Multichoice Service by way of general amendment.”
The senior lawyer argued further that there was no existing law in Nigeria empowering the NBC to regulate the prices of services that satellite television operators in the country were offering to their customers.
“The NBC Act does not say that any satellite television operators in the country cannot increase their prices.
“I therefore humbly ask that the plaintiffs’ suit be struck out for being grossly unmeritorious. We will not be asking for cost because they are our subscribers,” Onigbanjo had submitted while moving the preliminary objection on May 5.
Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) in Abuja has dismissed a class action suit filed by one Uche Diala and 961 other DStv and GOtv subscribers against MultiChoice Nigeria and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), citing lack of jurisdiction.
The suit challenged MultiChoice’s subscription price increases in November 2023 and May 2024, which the claimants described as arbitrary, exploitative, and unfair.
Diala and others sought to reverse the hikes and compel the company to adopt a more flexible billing model, such as a pay-as-you-view system used in other countries like South Africa.
They also accused MultiChoice of price discrimination against Nigerian consumers.
MultiChoice, through its counsel, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that pricing decisions do not fall within the tribunal’s remit and that the suit was improperly filed as a class action without first seeking the tribunal’s leave.
In its ruling on Thursday, the tribunal’s three-member panel led by Justice Thomas Okosun held that the core issues raised, which were pricing and tariff regulation, fall under the exclusive purview of the executive branch, particularly the President, as stipulated under the Price Control Act.
“The issue of price regulation is a matter that falls within the exclusive purview of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” Okosun stated.
While the tribunal acknowledged it holds both original and appellate jurisdiction under the FCCPC Act, it emphasized that such authority does not cover general price control unless abuse of market dominance is established—a point the claimants failed to prove.
On the procedural matter of filing a class action without prior approval, the tribunal noted that although it is ideal to obtain leave, failure to do so was not fatal in this instance since the claimants demonstrated a shared grievance and common interest.
Nonetheless, the tribunal upheld MultiChoice’s objection, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
“The preliminary objection of the first defendant succeeds,” the panel held. “This suit is accordingly struck out for want of jurisdiction.”
This ruling follows a similar outcome on May 8, when a Federal High Court in Abuja upheld MultiChoice’s price increases after the company sued the FCCPC.
In that judgment, Justice James Omotoso declared that the FCCPC lacked the authority to fix or suspend subscription rates.
MultiChoice Nigeria has slashed the price of its DStv decoder from N20,000 to N10,000, representing a 50 percent drop, in a aim at attracting attract more customers and curb declining subscriptions.
The campaign, titled “We’ve Got You,” was launched on June 16 and will continue until July 31.
Also, as part of its efforts to ease economic pressure on households and improve access to digital TV services, the campaign offers a free upgrade for both active and returning customers.
Speaking on the campaign, John Ugbe, chief executive officer (CEO) of MultiChoice Nigeria, said the initiative reflects the company’s commitment to rewarding loyalty and enhancing daily viewing experiences.
“We want to ensure our customers feel appreciated and have access to the best entertainment every day,” Ugbe said.
“The ‘We’veGot You’ campaign is about making premium content more accessible and showing that DStv offers something for everyone, not just football fans.
“By repositioning itself as a platform for daily value, DStv aims to encourage content discovery across a wider array of genres, including movies, drama, kids’ programming, and news.
“This means more channels, more shows, and more reasons to tune in every day.”
The development comes amid MultiChoice Nigeria’s legal battle with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over price hike.
Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) will, on Oct. 7, arraigned the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Qatar Airways, Mr Temi Birdzell, alongside the company and its top officers, over allegations bordering on breach of FCCPC Act, 2018.
The defendants will be arraigned before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Others to be arraigned with Birdzell are Stella Ihediwa, the Account Manager of the airline; Kennedy Chirchir, the Country Manager and Eva Ojeje, who is the Sales Manager of the company.
Although the arraignment was scheduled for Tuesday, the matter could not proceed.
Upon resumed hearing, none of the defendants was in court.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, none of the defendants was in court due to improper service of the court documents, including the hearing notice, on them.
FCCPC.’s lawyer, Chizenum Nsitem, told the court of their inability to serve four of the defendants, although the company was served.
Nsitem then sought an adjournment to enable them do the needful and the judge adjourned the matter until Oct. 7 for the defendants to take their plea.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the commission, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/200/2025, dragged Qatar Airways, Birdzell, Ihediwa, Chirchir and Ojeje to court as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.
FCCPC, in the application dated May 26 but filed May 27, had preferred a two-count charge against the defendants.
The defendants were alleged to have failed to appear before FCCPC in compliance with a lawful summons of the commission dated Sept. 6, 2024, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 33 (3) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection (FCCPC) Act, 2018.
They were also accused to have on Sept. 18, 2024, intentionally withheld the production of documents in compliance wth a lawful summons of the commission, thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 111 of FCCP Act, 2018.
In count three, they were alleged to have on Sept. 18, 2024, engaged in the contravention of the consumer rights, thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 124(1) and punishable under Section 155 of the same Act.
INTERPOL Report Shows Cybercrime is West, East African Most Dominant Security Concern
Nigeria’s BNPL Market is Projected to Value @ $2.6B by 2030
NIA Puts Industry Written Premium @ N1.5trn in 2024
V-Malaysia 2025: QNET Strengthens Global Network with Landmark 5-Day Event
Instagram Safety Tools Every Parent Should Know About
General News1 day agoNigeria’s BNPL Market is Projected to Value @ $2.6B by 2030
Telecom1 day agoFree WiFi Meets Mega Entertainment at the Grand Opening of Solution Fun City
E-Financial1 day agoNIA Puts Industry Written Premium @ N1.5trn in 2024
E-Financial2 days agoFlutterwave Named in 2025 TIME100 Most Influential Companies List
Telecom1 day agoInstagram Safety Tools Every Parent Should Know About
General News2 days agoAfDB Cuts Nigeria’s Growth Projection to 3.2%
General News2 days agoFG, Netherlands Partner on Digital Migration for NIS
Telecom2 days agoNCC Unveils Landmark RIA Report, Reinforces Stakeholder-Centric Regulation