The owners of DSTV and GoTv, Multichoice Nigeria, were fined N150 million by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal on Friday for violating its orders. The orders prevented the pay-TV company from raising its monthly subscription until the outcome of the lawsuit that was brought before the tribunal. Additionally, the tribunal mandated that the pay-TV provider give a complimentary one-month subscription to its DStv and GOtv packages to its Nigerian clientele.
Remember that the tribunal had previously ruled that Multichoice could not raise its membership costs without giving due notice in response to a lawsuit brought by Festus Onifade, an attorney located in Abuja, who claimed that the 8-day notice provided for the price rise was insufficient. After Multichoice disregarded court orders and went forward with its price hike, which it had notified its consumers about via email, Onifade went on to seek contempt charges against the company.
The allegations of contempt were brought against Mr. Mohammed Sani, the manager of Multi-Choice Nigeria Ltd.’s Abuja branch, on May 7. Because of the company’s deliberate actions in disobeying, contravening, and failing to comply with the interim order granted on April 29, Onifade requested an order from the tribunal directing MultiChoice to pay N1 billion, or any amount the tribunal deemed fit appropriate in this circumstance. The contempt charge was based on the company’s disobedience to the court order.
Sani was cautioned against disobeying the tribunal order in a Notice of Consequence of Disobedience to Order of Court, Form 48, marked: CCPT/OP/02/2024, dated and filed on May 7.
“Take notice that unless you abide by the below-listed order of the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, Abuja, issued on April 29, 2024, you will not be able to obtain goods or services. This order is restraining the first defendant/respondent, either by itself or through agents, representatives, officers, or privies, as described, from raising prices for goods and services that are scheduled to go into effect on May 1, 2024, until the hearing and decision of the motion on notice already filed before this tribunal.
For its part, Multichoice contended that pricing regulation disputes had been resolved by earlier decisions. The tribunal upheld its jurisdiction and ruled against Multichoice as a result of Onifade’s insistence that the notice period was insufficient and more urgent than the price increase. The hearing for the plaintiff’s substantive claim was scheduled for July 3 by the court.
