A Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) in Abuja, had today, Monday, April 29, restricted Multichoice Nigeria Limited, the owners of Dstv and GOtv from increasing their tariffs and cost of products and services, which was scheduled to begin on May 1st.
The three-member tribunal, led by Saratu Shafii, had given the temporary order following an ex-parte motion moved by Ejiro Awaritoma, the counsel for the applicant, Festus Onifade.
The tribunal had barred Multi-Choice from going ahead with an impending price increase scheduled to take effect from May 1st, at least until the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed before it.
“The 1st defendant is hereby restrained from taking any step(s) that may negatively affect the rights of the claimant and other consumers in respect of the suit pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.” Shafii had declared.
She then directed all parties involved in the suit to appear before the tribunal on May 7 at 10am for the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
Recall that the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) had earlier reported that Onifade had in the suit marked: CCPT/OP/2/2024, dragged Multi-Choice Nigeria Ltd and Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) before the tribunal.
The suit which was filed on April 29 had sought two orders which included:
“An order of interim injunction of this honorable tribunal restraining the 1st defendant, whether by themselves, her privies, assigns by whatever name called from going ahead with impending price increase schedule to take effect from 1st May, 2024, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice,”
“An order restraining the 1st defendant from taking any step(s) that may negatively affect the rights of the claimant and other consumers in respect of the suit pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.”
The other members of the tribunal include Thomas Okosun and Dr. Umar Duhu.
Although Onifade’s effort to protect the consumers’ rights and interests in the face of likely financial burdens should be commended, the lack of specific details regarding the nature of the price increase, and the identity of the first defendant poses more questions than it solves.
There is also the question of consumers having to first take matters into their own hands and resort to legal action, in the bid to call the Multi-Choice enterprise to order instead of the Federal Government doing so in the first place.
Why did Multi-Choice feel the need to hike the prices of their goods barely 4 months after the last increase, and what has the CCPT regulatory body been doing before Onifade resorted to file a law suit?
