Contempt: Lawyers ask court to jail MultiChoice MD

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.

Yoh

ok

Hmm

We shall see

this is becoming serious and interesting, hmmn!

Yeah

sunnyga wrote:

this is becoming serious and interesting, hmmn!

What is becoming

Multichoice case.