Tribunal Dismisses Subscription Price Hike Case Against MultiChoice Nigeria

Tribunal Dismisses Subscription Price Hike Case Against MultiChoice Nigeria

THE COMPETITION and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) dismissed the case challenging MultiChoice Nigeria’s subscription price hike.

Festus Onifade, the claimant, withdrew his case against the company

Onifade, who filed the lawsuit to oppose the price increase, decided not to continue.

He argued that MultiChoice would use the court’s vacation period to push its appeal and undermine his case.

“I am abandoning this matter,” Onifade stated.

He emphasized that he filed the suit to protest against the alleged unfair practices of multinational companies toward Nigerian consumers.

Moyosore Onigbanjo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), representing MultiChoice, did not oppose Onifade’s request to withdraw.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) also had no objections.

The tribunal granted Onifade’s request to withdraw the suit.

“The oral application of the claimant to withdraw this suit is hereby granted. No cost is awarded,” the tribunal ruled.

Earlier, on April 29, the tribunal had stopped MultiChoice from increasing its tariffs and subscription rates pending the hearing and determination of Onifade’s motion.

The tribunal’s temporary order restrained MultiChoice from implementing the price hike scheduled for May 1, 2024.

MultiChoice appealed the decision and sought a stay of proceedings.

Onifade had argued that MultiChoice failed to provide adequate notice regarding the subscription price increase, not challenging the price regulation itself.

The tribunal, chaired by Thomas Okosu, dismissed MultiChoice’s preliminary objection and imposed a N150 million penalty on the company for disobeying interim orders.

MultiChoice appealed the ruling and provided reasons for the price hike, citing the weakening exchange rate in Nigeria.

The company claimed it notified customers and regulatory authorities before the price increase.

The tribunal reviewed the arguments but found no special circumstances to suspend its proceedings.

The matter was adjourned until November after the court’s vacation.