A Federal
High Court in Lagos has fixed May 21, 2015 to rule on an application filed in
objection to the suit seeking to restrain Multichoice Nigeria Limited from
increasing subscription fees on the Digital Satellite television being operated
by it.
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 were seeking an order of the court restraining MultiChoice from
implementing the 20 per cent increment on DStv subscription rate which began on
April 1, 2015.
They also
want the court to compel the National Broadcasting Commission 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 is
being done in other parts of the world where MultiChoice operates.
But
MultiChoice, through its lawyer, Mr. Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), filed a
preliminary objection, urging the court to decline jurisdiction and
discountenance the reliefs being sought by the plaintiffs.
Canvassing
argument at the Tuesday’s proceeding, Onigbanjo maintained 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.
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.”
Onigbanjo
said, “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
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 submitted.
Justice
C.J. Aneke adjourned till May 21 to rule on the objection.
Earlier
at the proceeding, counsel for the plaintiffs, Yemi Salma, had reminded the
court that there was a pending application for committal filed against the
Managing Director and the Public Relations Officer of Multichoice, Mr. John
Ugbe and Caroline Oghuma respectively.
Salma
said the said committal application asking the court to jail Ugbe and Oghuma
for allegedly disobeying an order of the court should be taken first before any
other thing on Tuesday.
Aneke had
on April 2, 2015 made an interim order restraining MultiChoice from
implementing the 20 per cent increment in subscription rate on DStv, pending
the determination of the suit; but the plaintiffs alleged that the order was
shunned.
“My Lord,
the application for contempt must be taken first. My Lord, this position has
been severally adopted by the court, even by the Court of Appeal,” Salma said.
But in
opposition, Onigbanjo said the jurisdiction of the court had been challenged
and that that had to be settled first before the court could even make any
order.
Besides,
he reminded the court that the matter was specifically adjourned for the
hearing of his client’s preliminary objection, arguing that the court did not
have the power to overrule itself.
He
argued, “My Lord, a court without jurisdiction that goes on to act, does
whatever it does in futility. If a court does not have jurisdiction, where does
the power for committal come from?”
Aneke
upheld Onigbanjo’s submission and therefore heard MultiChoice’s premilinary
objection ahead of the application for committal.

No comments:
Post a Comment