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 the claimant, Festus Onifade, 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.
Counsel to MultiChoice, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Moyosore Onigbanjo 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.”
Counsel to the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), I.O. Alaba 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.
