The Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) recently struck out a case against MultiChoice Nigeria regarding a subscription price hike, following a request from the claimant, Festus Onifade, to withdraw the case. This decision came from a three-member tribunal after Onifade made an oral application to withdraw, expressing his intention to no longer pursue the matter.
During the proceedings, Onifade explained his reasons for withdrawing the case, citing concerns that MultiChoice would use the court’s annual vacation period to push its appeal at the Court of Appeal, thereby undermining his efforts. He stated, “I am abandoning this matter. I am withdrawing this case.” Onifade initially filed the suit to challenge what he perceived as the oppressive behavior of multinational corporations towards Nigerian consumers.
MultiChoice’s counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Moyosore Onigbanjo, did not object to the withdrawal request. Similarly, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) also had no objections. Consequently, the tribunal granted Onifade’s request, stating, “The oral application of the claimant to withdraw this suit is hereby granted. No cost is awarded.”
This development follows an earlier ruling on April 29, where the tribunal temporarily halted MultiChoice from increasing its tariffs and subscription rates pending the hearing and determination of a motion filed by Onifade. The three-member tribunal had initially ruled in favor of Onifade, restraining MultiChoice from implementing the planned price increase set for May 1, 2024. However, MultiChoice appealed the decision and sought a stay of proceedings.
Onigbanjo argued that the court should decline jurisdiction over Onifade’s suit, noting that a similar price dispute case had previously been resolved in favor of MultiChoice. Onifade countered that the issue at hand was about whether MultiChoice provided adequate notice regarding the May 1, 2024, subscription price increase, rather than the price regulation itself.
In its ruling, the tribunal, chaired by Thomas Okosu, dismissed MultiChoice’s preliminary objection for disobeying its interim orders. The tribunal imposed a 150 million naira administrative penalty on MultiChoice and mandated a one-month free subscription for affected customers.
MultiChoice responded by filing an appeal against this decision, arguing that the tribunal had erred. The company also submitted counter-affidavits dated July 12, 2024, explaining the reasons behind the price hike and requesting the tribunal to dismiss the case. Damilola Olatunji, in the affidavits, stated that the subscription price increase was necessary to mitigate the impact of Nigeria’s weakening exchange rate, and that the company had notified customers and regulatory authorities prior to the increment.
MultiChoice’s legal team filed a notice of appeal dated June 7, 2024, along with an application for a stay of execution of the tribunal’s orders. Onifade, however, urged the court to resolve the case promptly in the interest of justice. During a resumed hearing, Onigbanjo requested an adjournment until the Court of Appeal ruled on their applications. He argued that when a tribunal is aware of an ongoing appeal, it must wait for the appellate court’s decision.
Onifade contended that the issue of indefinite adjournment had already been settled by the tribunal and could not be reopened by MultiChoice. He maintained that a stay of proceedings must first be filed in the court that granted the initial decision and only if denied, should the applicant approach a higher court. Counsel to the FCCPC, I.O. Alaba, advised the tribunal to use its discretion based on the arguments presented.
Chairman Okosu acknowledged MultiChoice’s right to appeal but emphasized that proper procedures must be followed. He noted that MultiChoice had not demonstrated any special circumstances preventing them from seeking the tribunal’s leave to suspend proceedings.
“Whereas we agree that MultiChoice has the right to appeal on a matter before this tribunal, the proper procedures must be followed,” Okosu said. He concluded that the tribunal would proceed to hear and determine the matter since there was nothing to stay.
The tribunal then adjourned the case until November, after the court’s vacation. At this juncture, Onifade reiterated his decision to withdraw the case, insisting that MultiChoice would exploit the vacation period to advance its appeal and hinder his case. Following this, the tribunal struck out the case and reiterated, “The oral application of the claimant to withdraw this suit is hereby granted. No cost is awarded.”
This case underscores the complexities and procedural nuances involved in legal battles between consumers and large corporations, particularly in the regulatory landscape of Nigeria’s subscription-based services. It also highlights the strategic considerations that both claimants and defendants must navigate within the judicial system.
