Fee hike: Lawyers want court to jail Multichioce/DStv MD as company denies disobeying Court order

Two Lagos-based legal practitioners, Oluyinka Oyeniji and Osasuyi Adebayo,  have commenced contempt proceedings against the Managing Director of Multichoice Nigeria Limited, Mr. John Ugbe, for allegedly violating an order of court.

Ugbe, alongside the Public Relations Manager of the comapny, Caroline Oghuma, is  liable to being jailed if found guilty of the allegation.

The lawyers had, on April 2, 2015, secured a court order of interim injuction restraining Multichoice from giving effect to its proposed 20 per cent increment on subscription fee on the Digital Satellite Television being operated by it.

Justice C.J. Aneke, who made the interim order, had held that the order would subsist till the determination of a lawsuit contesting the legality of Multichoice’s newly introduced subscription rates on DStv.

However, at the resumed hearing on Thursday, one of the plaintiffs, Oyeniyi, informed the court that inspite of the order of court, Multichoice had not rescinded on its new rates, which had commenced from April 1.

“My Lord, whether wrongly or rightly, on the 2nd of April, your Lordship made an order that is bound to be obeyed. We filed a further affidavit citing the defendants for contempt of court,” Oyeniyi said.

In their motion on notice, served on the defendants along with Forms 48 and 49, the lawyers attached as exhibits copies of receipts issued by Multichoice to certain subscribers, reflecting payment of the new subscription rate of N13,980 rather than the old rate of N11,650 in spite of the court order.

“It is in the interest of justice to grant this applications and empower the honourable court as the place of last resort to the plaintiffs in preserving the dignity of the court,” the plaintiffs pleaded as they urged the court to make an order of committal against Ugbe and Oghuma.

 

John Ugbe, MultiChoice/Dstv MD

The other prayer contained in their motion on notice was for the court to order Multichoice to make a refund of all excess charges to all customers, who had subscribed to the new rate in the face of the subsisting court order.

The plaintiffs also asked for an order mandating Multichoice to tender a full page public apology in four national newspapers, including The PUNCH, ThisDay, The Guardian and The Sun, to all subscribers for violating the court order.

They also want the court to compel the company to tender televised apology on DStv as well as via text messages to all subscribers in the country.

But lawyer for Multichoice, Mr.  M.J. Onigbanjo (SAN), said his clients had not complied with order as it was wrongly made.

He noted that while the order was granted on April 2, the increment that the applicants complained of took effect on April 1 and his client could, therefore, not be held for contempt of court.

But Oyeniyi maintained that the order was for a continuing action rather than a concluded action.

The plaintiffs, in their substantive suit, are seeking an order of the court compelling the National Broadcasting Commission to regulate the activities of Multichoice on DStv.

They want an enforcement of the pay-per-view scheme, whereby subscribers would only pay for programmes watched, as is being done in other parts of the world where Multichoice operates.

But the company, through Onigbanjo, is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit as well as the competence of the originating summons served on his client.

Onigbanjo contended that the applicants lacked the locus standi to institute the action, saying they could not dictate how Multichoice could carry, run and conduct its business.

The Senior Advocate of Nigeria also insisted that it was not within the authority of NBC to prevent company for making increment in the price of services being offered to its customers.

He pointed the attention of the court to clauses 40 and 41 of the company’s terms of conditions, which stated 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 the plaintiff had no reasonable cause of action, just as he described the suit as academic “because the act complained of has been completed.”

Besides, he argued that the originating summons served on his client was defective, as service was not compliant with Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, as regards a writ that must be served outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Aneke adjourned till May 5, 2015, for further hearing.

Meanwhile,  Multichoice Nigeria Limited, owners and operators of DStv, has described as inaccurate publications, news reports and commentaries on various media platforms that it disobeyed an interim injunction restraining it from enforcing the increase in subscription rates for its programmes bouquet.

This was contained in a statement in Lagos Thursday by Kemi Shaba of the MultiChoice Legal Department.

The company said as at April 2, when the Federal High Court granted the orders of interim injunction, the price increase had already taken effect, having commenced on April 1.

“The status quo as at 2 April 2015 when the order was made was that the prices had already been increased.

“MultiChoice thus reiterates that it is not in breach of or disobeying the order of interim injunction made by the Federal High Court on 2nd April 2015,” the statement said.

On April 2, Justice C.J Aneke of the Federal High Court, Lagos, granted an interim injunction, ordering parties to a suit challenging the new subscription rates announced by MultiChoice to maintain the status quo and restrained MultiChoice from enforcing its planned increase in cost of different classes of viewing or programmes bouquet. The court adjourned hearing in the suit till 16 April 16.

MultiChoice claims it was served with the orders on April 8.

The statement further explained that that the contract agreement between MultiChoice and all its subscribers (including the parties who filed the suit) explicitly states that MultiChoice reserves the right to change prices and channels.

This fact, it added, was not disclosed to the court before the orders of interim injunction was obtained.

The statement also said as a result, MultiChoice’s lawyers, on Thursday, filed processes challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter and make the order of interim injunction of April 2.

The company’s lawyers have similarly filed processes seeking to set aside the interim injunction on several grounds.

One of these is whether a court is legally empowered to fix prices for a private concern such as MultiChoice in a free-market economy, the model that exists in the country.

MultiChoice also insists that its challenge of the jurisdiction of the court and the application to set aside the order make the interim injunction unenforceable until the determination of the court’s jurisdictional competence.

“When the suit came at the Federal High Court on Thursday, our lawyers raised all these issues before the honourable court and the matter was adjourned to 5th May 2015 for hearing of the application challenging jurisdiction of the court,” the company said.

MultiChoice maintains that it notified the general public and DStv subscribers that, with effect from April 1, it would effect an increase in prices charged for its services.

Counsel in the class action suit brought against DStv on the matter had Thursday informed the court that the satellite television service provider had gone ahead to give effect to its price increase contrary to the order given by the court.

Oluyinka Oyeniji led a team of lawyers, including Osasuyi Adebayo, Mufutau Olajobi, Yemi Salman and Fola Oluwole for the applicants.

DStv was represented by Moyo Onigbanjo (SAN) and M.K. Adesina among other lawyers.

Mr. Onigbanjo informed the court of his pending preliminary objection and application to set aside the orders of the court.

But Mr. Oyeniji objected.

He informed the court of his application for interlocutory injunction.

He also told Justice Aneke that DSTV had disobeyed the orders of the court and that relevant applications for contempt proceedings had been filed.

The court then adjourned the matter till May 5, 2015 for the argument of the preliminary objection.

It is after that it will then take arguments on the motion for interlocutory injunction, which had earlier been scheduled for the day.