A Federal High Court, Lagos, on Thursday said
that Digital Satellite Television (DStv) had the
right to increase its subscription rate as it did
last month.
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke then struck out a
suit filed by some aggrieved subscribers
challenging the company's recent 20 per cent
increment on subscription.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports
that DStv is being operated by Multi-Choice
Nigeria Ltd.
The aggrieved subscribers: Messrs Osasuyi
Adebayo and Oluyinka Oyeniji, who are also
lawyers, had filed the class action on behalf
of themselves and all other DStv subscribers
across the country.
The plaintiffs had sought an order of the court
restraining Multi-Choice from implementing
the 20 per cent increment on DStv
subscription rate which began on April 1.
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, in a ruling,
upheld the preliminary objection filed by
Multi-Choice, and ruled that the suit
amounted to an abuse of court process.
The judge rejected an argument by the
plaintiffs that Multi-Choice should not to be
given right of audience having failed to abide
by an earlier ex-parte order of the court
restraining the company from implementing
the increment.
Aneke said the court was bound to entertain
arguments from all parties before it,
irrespective of the alleged violation of the
court order.
He further ruled that the suit disclosed no
reasonable cause of action, as the plaintiffs
were not under any obligation to continue to
subscribe to the services of Multi-Choice into
the face of the increment.
Meanwhile, the judge upheld Multi-Choice's
argument that the suit failed to comply with
mandatory provisions of Sections 97 and 98
of the Sherrifs and Civil Processes Act.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports
that the sections stipulate that a writ to be
served outside jurisdiction must be
concurrently issued.
The plaintiffs, through their counsel, Mr Yemi
Salma, had urged the court to discountenance
such argument, as Section 19 of the Federal
High Court Act, had clearly defined the
jurisdiction of the court to be one within
Nigeria.
Salma had further urged the court not to
punish any irregularity in the issuance of the
writ on the plaintiffs, as such emanated from
the court.
He also stated that such irregularity could be
corrected by the court in doing substantial
justice.
However, the judge rejected the plaintiffs'
argument, and upheld the objection.
He was also silent on an argument by the
plaintiffs that the objection should be treated
as a demurrer, which has been abolished from
the rules of court.
Demurrer is an attempt by a defendant to get
dismissal of a suit without filing any process
to the substantive issues.
In the instant suit, Multi-Choice only filed
preliminary objection, and did not file any
process against the substantive suit.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports
that the judge had earlier rejected an attempt
by a human rights lawyer, Mr Ebun-Olu
Adegboruwa, to opt out of the suit.
Adegboruwa had filed an application to be
joined as a co-plaintiff, but later filed an
application to opt out.
Aneke, however, said he was persuaded by a
Supreme Court decision which stated that
once an objection was raised challenging
jurisdiction, the court was duty bound to first
determine the objection before entertaining
any other application.
According to the suit, the plaintiffs had
sought an order of the court compelling the
NBC to regulate the activities of Multi-Choice
so as to prevent what they described as an
arbitrary increment in subscription rates.
They specifically urged the court to impress it
on the NBC to be alive to its statutory
responsibility by ensuring that Multi-Choice is
compelled to implement the pay-per-view
scheme in Nigeria.
They said that with that subscribers would
only pay for programmes they watched, as
was done in other parts of the world where
Multi-Choice operated.
But Multi-Choice, through its lawyer, Moyosore
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.
It said that neither the government nor the
court could regulate prices in Nigeria, being a
country that operates a free-market economy.
Multi Choice also said that under its
conditions of agreement, especially clauses 40
and 41, it was free to change the fees payable
by subscribers for the services it was offering
them. (NAN).
0 comments: