toto slot

toto togel 4d

situs togel

10 situs togel terpercaya

situs togel

10 situs togel terpercaya

situs togel

situs toto

situs togel terpercaya

bandar togel online

10 situs togel terpercaya

toto togel

toto togel

situs togel

situs togel

situs togel

situs togel

situs toto

bo togel terpercaya

10 situs togel terpercaya

10 situs togel terpercaya

situs togel

situs togel

situs toto

situs toto

https://rejoasri-desa.id

https://www.eksplorasilea.com/

https://ukinvestorshow.com

https://advisorfinancialservices.com

https://milky-holmes-unit.com

RTP SLOT MAXWIN

https://ikpmbanyumas.org/

Court Dismisses Case Against DSTV Over Price Hike

2 Min Read

A Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed the suit filed by some disaffected subscribers of South Africa’s pay television, DSTV, challenging the recent 20 percent increase in subscription rates of MultiChoice’s DStv platform. The subscribers, Osasuyi Adebayo and Oluyinka Oyeniji, both lawyers, had filed the class action suit on behalf of themselves and other DStv subscribers in the country.

The plaintiffs had sought an order of the court restraining MultiChoice from effecting the new rates, which began on April 1, 2015.

In his ruling on Thursday in Lagos, Justice Chukwujeku Aneke, upheld the preliminary objection filed by MultiChoice and described the suit as an abuse of court process.

The judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument that MultiChoice did not deserve to be given right of audience, having failed to abide by an earlier ex parte order of the court restraining the company from implementing the rates.

Justice Aneke said the court was bound to entertain arguments from all parties before it, notwithstanding the alleged violation of the court order.

The court also ruled that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action, given that the plaintiffs were not obliged to remain MultiChoice subscribers on account of the hike in subscription rates.

MultiChoice had through its lawyer, Moyosore Onigbanjo, argued that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, as a court did not have the power to regulate the price of services that a business was offering to its customers.

The company further contended that neither the government nor the court could regulate prices in Nigeria, being a country that operates a free market economy.

The company pointed out that under its conditions or terms of agreement, especially Clauses 40 and 41, it was at liberty to, from time to time, change the fees payable by subscribers for the services being offered by the company.

Share this Article