John Ugbe
Two Lagos-based legal practitioners,
Oluyinka Oyeniji and Osasuyi Adebayo, have commenced contempt
proceedings against the Managing Director of MultiChoice Nigeria
Limited, Mr. John Ugbe, for allegedly violating a court order.
Ugbe, alongside the Public Relations
Manager of the company, Caroline Oghuma, is liable to being jailed if
found guilty of the allegation.
The lawyers had, on April 2, 2015,
secured a court order of interim injunction restraining MultiChoice from
giving effect to its proposed 20 per cent increment on subscription fee
on the Digital Satellite Television (DStv) being operated by it.
Justice C.J. Aneke of a Federal High
Court in Lagos, who made the interim order, had held that the order
would subsist till the determination of a lawsuit contesting the
legality of MultiChoice’s newly-introduced subscription rates on DStv.
However, at the resumed hearing on
Thursday, one of the plaintiffs, Oyeniyi, informed the court that in
spite of the court order, MultiChoice had not stopped its new rates,
which had commenced from April 1.
“My Lord, whether wrongly or rightly, on
the 2nd of April, your Lordship made an order that is bound to be
obeyed. We filed a further affidavit citing the defendants for contempt
of court,” Oyeniyi said.
In their motion on notice, served on the
defendants along with Forms 48 and 49, the lawyers attached as exhibits
copies of receipts issued by MultiChoice to certain subscribers
reflecting payment of the new subscription rate of N13, 980 rather than
the old rate of N11, 650 in spite of the court order.
“It is in the interest of justice to
grant this application and empower the honourable court as the place of
last resort to the plaintiffs in preserving the dignity of the court,”
the plaintiffs pleaded as they urged the court to make an order of
committal against Ugbe and Oghuma.
The other prayer contained in their
motion on notice was for the court to order MultiChoice to make a refund
of all excess charges to all customers who had subscribed to the new
rate in the face of the subsisting court order.
The plaintiffs also asked for an order
mandating MultiChoice to tender a full page public apology in four
national newspapers including The Punch, ThisDay, The Guardian and The
Sun, to all subscribers for violating the court order.
They also want the court to compel the
company to tender televised apology on DStv as well as via text messages
to all subscribers in the country.
But lawyer for MultiChoice, Mr. M.J. Onigbanjo (SAN), said the order was wrongly made.
He noted that while the order was
granted on April 2, the increment that the applicants complained of took
effect on April 1 and his client could, therefore, not be held for
contempt of court.
But Oyeniyi maintained that the order was for a continuing action rather than a concluded action.
The plaintiffs in their substantive suit
are seeking an order of the court compelling the National Broadcasting
Commission to regulate the activities of MultiChoice on DStv.
They want an enforcement of the
pay-per-view scheme, whereby subscribers would only pay for programmes
they watched, as was being done in other parts of the world where
MultiChoice operated.
But the company, through Onigbanjo, is
challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit as well
as the competence of the originating summons served on it.
Onigbanjo contended that the applicants
lacked the locus standi to institute the action, saying they could not
dictate how MultiChoice would run and conduct its business.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria also
insisted that it was not within the authority of NBC to prevent the
company from making increment in the price of services being offered to
its customers.
He pointed the attention of the court to
clauses 40 and 41 of the company’s terms of conditions which stated
that “MultiChoice Nigeria may, from time to time, change the fees
payable to MultiChoice Nigeria for the MultiChoice service by way of
general amendment.”
Onigbanjo said the plaintiff had no
reasonable cause of action, just as he described the suit as academic
“because the act complained of has been completed.”
Besides, he argued that the originating
summons served on his client was defective, as service was not compliant
with Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, as regards a
writ that must be served outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Aneke adjourned till May 5, 2015 for further hearing.