Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Nigerian Tribunal Fines Multichoice N150 Million, Offers One-Month Free DStv/Gotv Subscription to Users
Nigerian Tribunal Multichoice: Multichoice Nig. Ltd bagged N150 million fine for disobeying CCPT, Competition, and Consumer Protection Tribunal, order on subscription increment for DStv and Gotv packages on Friday.
Nigerian Tribunal Multichoice Fine DStv Gotv Subscription
It was previously reported that Multichoice declared subscription increment rates for its DStv and GOtv packages for the second time in five months. The new rates were to take effect from May 1.
However, according to some Nigerians, the eight-day notice given for the increment was inadequate after which the tribunal ordered pay-tv not to increase its subscription fees without proper notice. An Abuja-based lawyer, Festus Onifade, filed a lawsuit against the company because of the disobedience.
MultiChoice Nig. Ltd Challenges Ruling
Multichoice Nigeria, in May, responded by challenging the tribunal’s verdict restricting it from the increment of its packages. The company, through its lawyer, Moyosore Onibanjo, filed an application on April 30 challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal on the price restraining order.
Also Read: MultiChoice Cracks Down on Streaming Pirates with Another Arrest
However, the tribunal, sitting in Abuja, ordered and fined the pay television operator to pay N150 million. Also, to give a month free subscription to all Nigerian subscribers on the DStv and Gotv platforms, for flouting its order.
Tribunal Finds Multichoice Guilty of Defying Its Ruling
The three-member tribunal chaired by Thomas Okosun, in a ruling, found Multichoice guilty of contempt for flouting its earlier order restraining the pay television operator from implementing a hike in its subscription rates for DStv and GOtv.
The tribunal ruled that Multichoice’s breach of interim order. It highlighted the company’s faults in going ahead to enforce an increment for the packages after it had barred it from doing so was intolerable.
The tribunal added that such should not be allowed, after which it dismissed the company’s preliminary objection for disobeying its orders.
