Multichoice Nigeria has appealed the ruling of the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) which imposed a fine of N150 million and “free monthly subscription order” on it.
The Pay TV company, in an appeal filed before the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja is also highlighting reasons the ruling of the CCPT should be set aside by the appellate court.
This is contained in MultiChoice’s notice of appeal seeking the Court of Appeal to hold that the Tribunal “erred in law.”
LEADERSHIP has learnt on Tuesday that the Pay TV’s eight grounds of notice of appeal argued that the members of the Tribunal erred in several areas of law.
Here under are the reasons listed by Multichoice in praying the court to set aside the fine imposed by the CCPT.
Fair Hearing.
Multichoice argues that the Tribunal imposed a fine on it without allowing its legal team to explain itself regarding the price hike.
Entertaining the Lawyer’s Suit.
The Pay TV insists that the Tribunal should not have presided over a complaint that has not be decided by the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Council.
A similar Case has been decided before.
Multichoice emphasised that the issue of its price hike had been determined by the Tribunal before, thereby barring its panel from presiding over the same issues in alleged violation of legal procedures.
The tribunal imposed penalties not sought by the lawyer.
Multichoice pointed out that the lawyer did not ask for a N150 million penalty and a one-month free subscription fine against it. It was also of the view that the Tribunal acted in such a manner without hearing from all of its subscribers.
The tribunal imposed a huge fine based on personal claims.
The firm also stressed that the Tribunal erroneously imposed a huge fine on it while leveraging on a lawyer’s personal issues with his subscription package.
The tribunal imposed a fine in a hurry.
Multichoice also accuses the Tribunal of not hearing all the pending applications for, and against its price hike, before imposing such fines on it.
The tribunal cannot regulate prices.
Multichoice maintained that a tribunal cannot preside over issues of price increase.
Multichoice did not disobey the Tribunal.
Multichoice reiterated to the Court of Appeal that a party cannot be said to have disobeyed an order of court when it has filed an application challenging the powers of the court to preside over a matter.
“An order setting aside the ruling and Orders of the Hon. Tribunal delivered on the 7th June 2024,” Multichoice appealed.
The CCPT has said it would review the reasons identified by Multichoice, noting that the agency could involve regulatory bodies such as the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC).