Court Upholds DStv’s 20 % Subscription Increment

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, on Thursday said that Digital Satellite Television (DStv) operated by Multichoice Nigeria had the right to increase its subscription rate as it did last month, the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN reports.

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 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 Multichoice 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 Multichoice, and ruled that the suit amounted to an abuse of court process.

The judge rejected an argument by the plaintiffs that Multichoice should not 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 Multichoice in the face of the increment.

Meanwhile, the judge upheld Multichoice’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.

Multichoice had 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.

Multichoice 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.