Multichoice Nigeria has declared that it will appeal Friday’s ruling of the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, CCPT, which slammed a N150 million fine against it for challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
The Eagle Online reports that Justice Thomas Okosu, who chaired a three-man panel, also ordered Multichoice to provide one-month free subscription on its DStv and GOtv platforms.
It was learnt that a lawyer, Festus Onifade, had sued Multichoice after it announced increment of subscription rates on its DStv and GOtv packages from May 1, 2024.
The tribunal had restrained Multichoice from implementing the price increase pending the hearing of the motion.
Similarly, FCCPC accused Pay TV of unjustly increasing subscription fees without one-month notice to customers and leveraging this to seek interim orders against Pay TV.
But Multichoice challenged the jurisdiction of the tribunal, also arguing that the power to regulate prices is vested in the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
However, the three-man panel chaired by Justice Thomas Okosu, on Friday, held that Section 39(2) of the FCCPC Act asserted that the tribunal shall have jurisdiction throughout the federation and on all commercial activities aimed at making a profit.
Also Read:
- Kenn Ayere’s Lifestyle Value Mall provides job opportunities for over 100 youths in Benin
- 2025 AFCON Qualifiers: Osimhen, Lookman score as Nigeria beat Benin Republic
- Buratai mourns Yar’Adua’s mother
- Why we are against using INEC officials from Imo, Kogi for Edo polls – Ighodalo
- FG implementing critical initiatives to train, equip police personnel – Tinubu
“The jurisdiction of this tribunal extends to all business activities within Nigeria,” Justice Okosu held.
Reacting to the ruling, Multichoice Nigeria said it disagrees with the ruling and will file an appeal against it.
The statement reads: “MultiChoice Nigeria is aware of the recent ruling by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, CCPT, regarding its jurisdiction to entertain a price regulation matter.
“We disagree with the ruling, and will therefore file an appeal against said ruling.
“As the matter is currently sub judice, we are restrained from making further comments.”