The Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) has struck out a subscription price hike case instituted against MultiChoice Nigeria.

A three-member tribunal struck out the suit following a request by Festus Onifade, the claimant, to withdraw his case against MultiChoice.

Onifade who made an oral application for the withdrawal said he no longer intends to proceed with the matter.

He also expressed the view that MultiChoice would leverage the period of the court’s annual 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 while explaining that he had filed the suit to challenge the alleged oppressive attitude of multinationals toward Nigerian consumers.

Moyosore Onigbanjo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, counsel to MultiChoice, stated that he had no objection to the claimant’s request to withdraw.

Counsel for the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) also had no objections.

The tribunal granted Onifade’s Request.

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

On April 29, the tribunal stopped MultiChoice from increasing its tariffs, and subscription rates pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice filed by Onifade.

A three-member tribunal had ruled in favour of Onifade by temporarily restraining MultiChoice from implementing the impending price increase scheduled to take effect on May 1, 2024,

But MultiChoice had appealed the decision and filed for a stay of proceedings.

Onigbanjo said MultiChoice had 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 favour 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 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 subsequently 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 to 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, Onigbanjo 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.

On his part, Onifade said the issue of indefinite adjournment had been decided by the tribunal and could not be reopened by MultiChoice.

He said the stay of proceedings in his case must first be filed in the court where the decision was granted.

“It is only upon the refusal of that stay that the applicant can approach a higher court,” Onifade added.

“Even where an applicant approaches a higher court, that higher court must make a positive pronouncement before the proceedings of a lower court can be stayed.”

I.O. Alaba, counsel to the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), asked the tribunal to exercise its wisdom and discretion based on the arguments of both parties.

Ruling on the applications, Okosu said while MultiChoice has the right to appeal, “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,” Okosu said.

“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.”

Okosu subsequently moved to adjourn the matter till November after the court’s vacation.

He said he could not disobey the tribunal’s own rule on vacation.

It was at this point that Onifade 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 frustrate his case.

The tribunal subsequently struck it out.

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

Management of Arik Air (In Receivership) are dismayed by the sudden order issued by the Honourable Minister of Aviation to ground our Aircraft.

This decision, made without warning or consultation, has serious repercussions for our valued passengers, dedicated employees, and the broader Nigerian economy.

Our priority has always been to connect people and facilitate commerce, especially on critical domestic routes. The grounding of our fleet disrupts these vital services, leaving passengers stranded and inflating already high travel costs. This decision hurts everyday Nigerians who rely on our flights for business, family, and essential activities.

The decision also disregards ongoing judicial processes. On February 26, 2016, a judgment was made in favor of Atlas Petroleum International Limited and Engineer Arthur Eze.

However, there is an ongoing case in the Federal High Court, where Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) is asserting its secured interest in Arik’s assets.

Despite this, a writ of attachment was issued on July 18, 2024, targeting our Aircraft, subsequent to which, further to an originating motion filed by AMCON, the High Court of the FCT on July 25, 2024 clearly instructed all parties to maintain status quo.

We therefore are perplexed as to the grounding of our fleet, which is an overreach of the ongoing judicial processes and directives of court.

We believe this action undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent, prioritizing unsecured private interests over the public good and the rights of secured creditors. We are committed to following the legal process and have full faith in the judiciary to resolve these matters fairly.

Arik has always been a proud partner in Nigeria’s growth, providing reliable and safe air travel. We urge the authorities to reconsider this decision, lift the grounding order, and allow us to continue serving the public and supporting the economy.

We stand with our passengers and employees during this challenging time and are working tirelessly to resolve this situation. Your support and understanding are greatly appreciated.

We sincerely regret any inconvenience caused to our esteemed passengers.

The legal team of Telecom Satellites Limited (TStv) has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to grant its “restraining” requests to prevent the business from suffering irreparable losses in Nigeria, according to Nairametrics.

Bright Echefu,

This is detailed in its motion on notice marked FHC/CS/ABJ/665/2022.

The motion seeks protection from alleged further harassment by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over what it claims to be an investment issue with Mr. Kabiru Tanimu, former Minister of Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs.

Applicant’s Motion

In the motion, the EFCC, Turaki, Tudu Ventures, and the Attorney General of the Federation are listed as defendants.

According to the applicant’s lawyer, Asiwaju Awomolo (SAN), his client was introduced to the ex-minister for the purpose of investing in and financing the purchase of equipment for its operations.

He submitted that, as part of the investment agreement, the ex-minister was allotted 50% of TSTV shares in his personal capacity.

He stated that Turaki was also appointed Chairman of the Board of Trustees, while his children were made directors of TSTV.

He argued that based on the share transaction, it was agreed that the ex-minister should finance a portion of TSTV’s business operations.

The lawyer stated:

“By the agreement of the parties, the 3rd defendant (Turaki) paid for transmission and broadcasting equipment directly to the foreign suppliers.

“The 3rd defendant thereafter facilitated another investment to boost the operations of TSTV (the applicant) through Tudu Ventures.”

The applicant then claimed that, surprisingly, on March 4, 2021, Tudu Ventures sued TSTV at the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja for the recovery of Turaki’s investment.

The lawyer submitted that following the EFCC’s intervention in 2022, its officials have since been harassing, intimidating, and bullying TSTV’s officers, requesting them to produce the investment of the ex-minister and Tudu Ventures.

“If this application is not granted, TSTV and its officials will suffer irreparable loss, and their business may be jeopardized, as the individuals summoned are key officials who run the main activities at TSTV’s headquarters in Abuja and indeed in all its branches across the Federation,” the lawyer stated, asking the court to restrain the EFCC from harassing its business.

According to TSTV, it has commercial and contractual obligations to millions of viewers worldwide on a 24-hour basis, and the EFCC’s actions could cause a permanent interruption of the applicant’s transmission activities.

Reports said that the pending case would continue when the court returned from its vacation.

More insights

While TSTV’s motion is pending, the EFCC also has a fraud-related case against it and its Managing Director, Bright Echefu, among others, before another court presided by Justice Inyang Ekwo.

Count six of the charges alleges that Echefu defrauded Mr. Tanimu, MD of Kalsiyam Global and also former Minister of Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs, of N380 million.

Other allegations state that the defendants allegedly contravened money laundering laws, including tax evasion, unremitted Value Added Tax (VAT), Company Income Tax, and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) deducted from the salaries of 165 staff members.

Echefu, the MD of Briechberg Investment Ltd, was accused of obtaining N150 million from Mr. Turaki Kabiru Tanimu, SAN, MD of Kalsiyam Farm, with the alleged intent to defraud.

In the matter before Justice Ekwo, TSTV and its MD claim the EFCC is trying to criminalize a civil transaction it had with the ex-minister.

What you should know

TSTV, a satellite TV company launched by Echefu, was expected to challenge the monopolistic tendencies of MultiChoice, owners of DStv and GOtv in Nigeria.

Touted as the first and only fully indigenous Pay-TV operator in the country, TSTV entered the industry on October 1, 2017, with appealing offerings that raised the hopes of many Nigerians. Indeed, its decision to launch on the country’s Independence Day was seen as symbolic of a declaration of ‘freedom’ in the Pay-TV industry. However, the company disappeared after the launch.

It made a comeback on October 1, 2020, promising to offer Nigerians the best Pay-TV experience. However, its service remained intermittent, leaving subscribers who had invested in the company’s decoders with constant complaints.

TSTV completely went off the radar again in March last year and has remained so to date without any explanation to the subscribers, aside from intermittent apologies for ‘technical glitches’ during its active days.

The cases before both courts are now within their purview to determine one way or another.

Credit: Nairametrics