admin 
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) Tribunal sitting in Abuja, on Thursday, adjourned ruling in the matter between an Abuja-based lawyer, Festus Onifade, Coalition of Nigerian Consumers and pay TV service provider, MultiChoice Nigeria, Limited, till Monday.
This was the outcome at a sitting, which dragged on till late Thursday.
Consequently, the tribunal said its ruling/decision on the applications taken on Thursday, would be contained in the judgment to be delivered in the case after argument on the originating summons that was adjourned to Monday, July 25, 2022.
At the hearing, MultiChoice asked the tribunal to decline hearing the suit challenging the increase of the subscription fees for its television services on grounds of jurisdiction.
Onifade and the Coalition of Nigeria Consumers had dragged MultiChoice, the operators of DStv and GOtv platforms, to the tribunal following announcement by the company in March 2022 that the subscription rates for the various bouquets on its platforms would go up on April 1, 2022.
In the suit in which the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Council is the second defendant, Onifade prayed the tribunal for an order restraining MultiChoice from increasing the subscription rates for its services and other products pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice dated and filed on March 30. The claimant also asked the tribunal to make an order directing MultiChoice to adopt pay-as- you -view subscription model for its pay television services.
Onifade had during hearing of the suit on April 11, indicated that he had filed a written address and contempt proceedings against MultiChoice for allegedly disregarding the tribunal’s order not to increase its subscription rates made on March 30.
At the resumed hearing of the suit on Thursday, the tribunal took all pending applications. Key was the application by MultiChoice challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the suit.
Jamiu Agoro, counsel to the pay television service provider, argued that the tribunal could not hear the suit because by Section 47 of its Act, “it can only listen to appeals on matters that have been decided on by the FCCPC. ”
Agoro argued that if the claimant felt aggrieved by the decision of the MultiChoice, he should have approached the FCCPC with his grievance.
The company also argued that while the preservative order was made on March 30, 2022 when the order it ought to preserve had already been perfected and completed.
It, therefore, said: “Granting the application will set a dangerous precedent that a party could be penalised for an order already completed.”
The company also argued that “it cannot be held in contempt for an order, which it has already asked the Tribunal should set aside.”
However, the tribunal was forced to adjourn as the MultiChoice’s lawyer said he was not ready reply to the originating summons filed by the claimant. Agoro had told the tribunal that he thought only the various applications were scheduled for hearing on Thursday.
But, the three-member tribunal headed by Thomas Okosun, said there was an order for counsel to the parties to argue on all the applications and the originating summons at Thursday’s hearing.
