Connect with us

News

Tribunal quashes DStv, GOtv price hike case

Published

on

The Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) has struck out a subscription price hike case instituted against MultiChoice Nigeria.

A three-member tribunal struck out the suit following a request by the claimant, Festus Onifade, to withdraw his case against MultiChoice.

Onifade who made an oral application for the withdrawal said he no longer intends to proceed with the matter.

He also expressed the view that MultiChoice would leverage the period of the court’s annual vacation to argue its appeal at the Court of Appeal and frustrate his case.

Advertisement

“I am abandoning this matter. I am withdrawing this case,” he said while explaining that he had filed the suit to challenge the alleged oppressive attitude of multinationals toward Nigerian consumers.

Counsel to MultiChoice, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Moyosore Onigbanjo stated that he had no objection to the claimant’s request to withdraw.

Counsel for the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) also had no objections.

The tribunal granted Onifade’s Request.

Advertisement

“The oral application of the claimant to withdraw this suit is hereby granted. No cost is awarded,” the tribunal ruled.

On April 29, the tribunal stopped MultiChoice from increasing its tariffs, and subscription rates pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice filed by Onifade.

A three-member tribunal had ruled in favour of Onifade by temporarily restraining MultiChoice from implementing the impending price increase scheduled to take effect on May 1, 2024,

But MultiChoice had appealed the decision and filed for a stay of proceedings.

Advertisement

Onigbanjo said MultiChoice had filed a preliminary objection urging the court to decline jurisdiction over the suit filed by Festus Onifade and to strike it out, arguing that a similar price dispute case had previously been decided in favour of his client.

Onifade argued that the issue before the court was whether MultiChoice Nigeria provided adequate notice regarding the May 1, 2024, TV subscription price increase, not about price regulation or increase.

In its ruling, the three-member panel chaired by Thomas Okosu dismissed MultiChoice’s preliminary objection for disobeying its interim orders and subsequently imposed a 150 million naira administrative penalty on MultiChoice, along with a one-month subscription order against the Pay TV provider.

MultiChoice has subsequently filed an appeal against the ruling, arguing that the tribunal erred in its decision.

Advertisement

The company also filed counter-affidavits dated July 12, 2024, providing reasons for its price hike and requesting that the tribunal dismiss the case.

In its affidavits, deposed to by Damilola Olatunji, MultiChoice explained that to mitigate the impact of the weakening exchange rate in Nigeria, it was constrained to increase its subscription prices, though it did so to the least affordable extent possible.

The company insisted that it duly notified its customers and regulatory authorities before the increment was effected.

It was stated that the defendant had already filed a notice of appeal dated June 7, 2024, and an application for a stay of execution of the tribunal’s orders made on June 7, 2024, along with a request for all further proceedings before the tribunal to be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.

Advertisement

Onifade urged the court to determine his case in the interest of justice.

At the resumed hearing on Monday, Onigbanjo asked the tribunal to adjourn the matter until the Court of Appeal decided on his applications.

He explained that the law dictates that when a tribunal is aware that an application is before the Court of Appeal, it must allow the Court of Appeal to decide.

On his part, Onifade said the issue of indefinite adjournment had been decided by the tribunal and could not be reopened by MultiChoice.

Advertisement

He said the stay of proceedings in his case must first be filed in the court where the decision was granted.

“It is only upon the refusal of that stay that the applicant can approach a higher court,” Onifade added.

“Even where an applicant approaches a higher court, that higher court must make a positive pronouncement before the proceedings of a lower court can be stayed.”

Counsel to the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), I.O. Alaba asked the tribunal to exercise its wisdom and discretion based on the arguments of both parties.

Advertisement

Ruling on the applications, Okosu said while MultiChoice has the right to appeal, “proper procedures must be followed by MultiChoice”.

He said MultiChoice’s legal team had not shown the special circumstances that restrained it from seeking the tribunal’s leave to suspend its 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.

“We have reviewed the positions of Order 6, Rule 4 of the court of appeal rules, and did not see or find any circumstances that prevented MultiChoice from filing a stay of proceedings and execution before this tribunal.

Advertisement

“In the circumstances, this tribunal has nothing to stay and will therefore proceed to hear and determine this matter.”

Okosu subsequently moved to adjourn the matter till November after the court’s vacation.

He said he could not disobey the tribunal’s own rule on vacation.

It was at this point that Onifade stated that he no longer intended to proceed with the matter, insisting that MultiChoice would leverage the vacation to argue its appeal at the Court of Appeal and frustrate his case.

Advertisement

The tribunal subsequently struck it out.

“The oral application of the claimant to withdraw this suit is hereby granted. No cost is awarded,” the tribunal ruled.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Judge sentences Trump in hush money case but fails to impose any punishment

Published

on

By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

President-elect Donald Trump was sentenced Friday in his hush money case, but the judge declined to impose any punishment, an outcome that cements his conviction but frees him to return to the White House unencumbered by the threat of a jail term or a fine.

Trump’s sentence of an unconditional discharge caps a norm-smashing case that saw the former and future president charged with 34 felonies, put on trial for almost two months and convicted by a jury on every count. Yet, the legal detour — and sordid details aired in court of a plot to bury affair allegations — didn’t hurt him with voters, who elected him to a second term.

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan could have sentenced the 78-year-old Republican to up to four years in prison. Instead, he chose a sentence that sidestepped thorny constitutional issues by effectively ending the case but assured that Trump will become the first person convicted of a felony to assume the presidency.

Advertisement

Merchan said that like when facing any other defendant, he must consider any aggravating factors before imposing a sentence, but the legal protection that Trump will have as president “is a factor that overrides all others.”

“Despite the extraordinary breadth of those legal protections, one power they do not provide is that they do not erase a jury verdict,” Merchan said.

Trump, briefly addressing the court as he appeared virtually from his Florida home, said his criminal trial and conviction has “been a very terrible experience” and insisted he committed no crime.

The Republican former president, appearing on a video feed 10 days before he is inaugurated, again pilloried the case, the only one of his four criminal indictments that has gone to trial and possibly the only one that ever will.

Advertisement

“It’s been a political witch hunt. It was done to damage my reputation so that I would lose the election, and obviously, that didn’t work,” Trump said.

Trump called the case “a weaponization of government” and “an embarrassment to New York.”

With Trump 10 days from inauguration, Merchan had indicated he planned a no-penalty sentence called an unconditional discharge, and prosecutors didn’t oppose it.

Prosecutors said Friday that they supported a no-penalty sentence, but they chided Trump’s attacks on the legal system throughout and after the case.

Advertisement

“The once and future President of the United States has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy,” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said.

Rather than show remorse, Trump has “bred disdain” for the jury verdict and the criminal justice system, Steinglass said, and his calls for retaliation against those involved in the case, including calling for the judge to be disbarred, “has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has put officers of the court in harm’s way.”

As he appeared from his Florida home, the former president was seated with his lawyer Todd Blanche, whom he’s tapped to serve as the second-highest ranking Justice Department official in his incoming administration.

“Legally, this case should not have been brought,” Blanche said, reiterating Trump’s intention to appeal the verdict. That technically can’t happen until he’s sentenced.

Advertisement

Trump, a Republican, becomes the first person convicted of a felony to assume the presidency.

The judge had indicated that he planned the unconditional discharge — a rarity in felony convictions — partly to avoid complicated constitutional issues that would have arisen if he imposed a penalty that overlapped with Trump’s presidency.

Before the hearing, a handful of Trump supporters and critics gathered outside. One group held a banner that read, “Trump is guilty.” The other held one that said, “Stop partisan conspiracy” and “Stop political witch hunt.”

The hush money case accused Trump of fudging his business’ records to veil a $130,000 payoff to porn actor Stormy Daniels. She was paid, late in Trump’s 2016 campaign, not to tell the public about a sexual encounter she maintains the two had a decade earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them, and he contends that his political adversaries spun up a bogus prosecution to try to damage him.

Advertisement

“I never falsified business records. It is a fake, made up charge,” the Republican president-elect wrote on his Truth Social platform last week. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office brought the charges, is a Democrat.

Bragg’s office said in a court filing Monday that Trump committed “serious offenses that caused extensive harm to the sanctity of the electoral process and to the integrity of New York’s financial marketplace.”

While the specific charges were about checks and ledgers, the underlying accusations were seamy and deeply entangled with Trump’s political rise. Prosecutors said Daniels was paid off — through Trump’s personal attorney at the time, Michael Cohen — as part of a wider effort to keep voters from hearing about Trump’s alleged extramarital escapades.

Trump denies the alleged encounters occurred. His lawyers said he wanted to squelch the stories to protect his family, not his campaign. And while prosecutors said Cohen’s reimbursements for paying Daniels were deceptively logged as legal expenses, Trump says that’s simply what they were.

Advertisement

“There was nothing else it could have been called,” he wrote on Truth Social last week, adding, “I was hiding nothing.”

Trump’s lawyers tried unsuccessfully to forestall a trial. Since his May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, they have pulled virtually every legal lever within reach to try to get the conviction overturned, the case dismissed or at least the sentencing postponed.

The Trump attorneys have leaned heavily into assertions of presidential immunity from prosecution, and they got a boost in July from a Supreme Court decision that affords former commanders-in-chief considerable immunity.

Trump was a private citizen and presidential candidate when Daniels was paid in 2016. He was president when the reimbursements to Cohen were made and recorded the following year.

Advertisement

On one hand, Trump’s defense argued that immunity should have kept jurors from hearing some evidence, such as testimony about some of his conversations with then-White House communications director Hope Hicks.

And after Trump won this past November’s election, his lawyers argued that the case had to be scrapped to avoid impinging on his upcoming presidency and his transition to the Oval Office.

Merchan, a Democrat, repeatedly postponed the sentencing, initially set for July. But last week, he set Friday’s date, citing a need for “finality.” He wrote that he strove to balance Trump’s need to govern, the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, the respect due a jury verdict and the public’s expectation that “no one is above the law.”

Trump’s lawyers then launched a flurry of last-minute efforts to block the sentencing. Their last hope vanished Thursday night with a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that declined to delay the sentencing.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the other criminal cases that once loomed over Trump have ended or stalled ahead of trial.

After Trump’s election, special counsel Jack Smith closed out the federal prosecutions over Trump’s handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. A state-level Georgia election interference case is locked in uncertainty after prosecutor Fani Willis was removed from it. [AP]

Continue Reading

News

Emirship tussle: Celebration in Kano as A’Court rule in favour of Emir Sanusi

Published

on

By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

Celebration in the ancient city of Kano as a Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the 16th Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II in the crucial legal battle over the Emirship stool.

Supporters of Emir Sanusi, including youths and elderly individuals, celebrated the victory with drums, dancing, and other festivities.

The judgement delivered by the Appeal Court which sat in Abuja has brought an end to the prolonged legal dispute that threatened the stability of the Kano Emirate.

Advertisement

Recall that the dispute began when Governor Abba Yusuf sometime in May 2024 dissolved all the Emirates and dethroned the 15th Emir of Kano, Aminu Ado Bayero while he was away from the state (the palace) and that which paved way for the reinstatement of the 16th Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II who was immediately moved into the Kofar-Kudu palace to ascend the throne.

Upon return to the state, Bayero was forced to occupy the Nassarawa mini palace in a sit tight and where he currently carries out his courts.

Continue Reading

News

Akwa Ibom sacks all commissioners

Published

on

Governor Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom State has dissolved his cabinet, saying he needs to bring new professionals on board.

Speaking during a valedictory session at the exco chamber, on Friday, Eno said none of the commissioners under performed.

The governor who stated that though all of them delivered on their responsibilities, they had to be replaced for new set of professionals to be brought into the government.

“For me, if you were to be changed based on non-performance, I think none of the Commissioners would go. All of you have delivered and that’s why the Arise Agenda has succeeded. But we must come to the end of a season, start another season and keep moving,” he said.

Advertisement

He said a valedictory dinner will be held on Friday evening at the Banquet Hall, Government House, Uyo, in honour of the outgone exco members.

Most of the commissioners have been in office for almost 10 years as some of them served under former Governor Udom Emanuel.

The commissioners and advisers were said to have been retained to allow Governor Eno compensate them for the services they rendered since they were not rewarded by the time the last administration came to an end on May 29, 2023.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News