Entertainment

Multichoice To Appeal ₦150M Fine By Tribunal

Multichoice To Appeal ₦150M Fine By Tribunal

Multichoice To Appeal ₦150M Fine By Tribunal

MultiChoice Nigeria says it will appeal the ruling of the competition and consumer protection tribunal (CCPT) after the company was fined N150 million for challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

On Friday, the tribunal fined MultiChoice and ordered the company to provide one-month free subscriptions on DStv and GOtv to Nigerians.

MultiChoice announced an increase in the cost of subscriptions for its DStv and GOtv packages on April 24.

However, on April 29, the tribunal stopped MultiChoice from increasing its tariffs and cost of products and services, which was scheduled to begin on May 1.

ALSO READ:  I Can't Rest, No Serious Leader Should Rest With Nigeria’s Situation – Peter Obi Mocks Tinubu

MultiChoice challenged the tribunal’s verdict restricting it from increasing the prices of its packages through an application filed on April 30 by Moyosore Onibanjo, the company’s lawyer.

The tribunal, in its ruling on Friday, cited section 39 (2) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) Act which states the “tribunal shall have jurisdiction throughout the federation and on all commercial activities aimed at making a profit”.

For failing to comply with the order of the tribunal not to implement the price adjustment, Thomas Okosu, who led the three-man tribunal panel, imposed an administrative penalty on Multichoice.

In a statement addressing the order, MultiChoice said it disagrees with the position of the tribunal.

ALSO READ:  19-Year-Old Federal University of Otuoke Student Dies Of Drug Overdose

“MultiChoice Nigeria is aware of the recent ruling by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) regarding its jurisdiction to entertain a price regulation matter,” the company said.

“We disagree with the ruling, and will therefore file an appeal against said ruling.”

MultiChoice said the company is restrained from making further comments because the matter is currently sub judice.