Home BUSINESS DStv Faces Contempt Of Court Over Price Increase

DStv Faces Contempt Of Court Over Price Increase


There are indications that a satellite television service provider DStv is facing contempt of court as a team of lawyers, led by Oluyinka Oyeniji brought to the notice of the court the fact that the organization has disobeyed the court over its ruling retraining it from increasing the prices of its services.

Other lawyers in the team are Osasuyi Adebayo, Mufutau Olajobi, Yemi Salman and Fola Oluwole for the applicants. The lawyers, in the class action suit brought against DStv today, informed the court that the satellite television service provider has gone ahead to give effect to its price increase contrary to the order given.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos, had on April 2, 2015 made orders restraining DStv from giving effect or enforcing its planned increase in cost of the different classes of viewing or programmes pending the determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction, which was adjourned till April 16, 2016.

But when the matter came up today, the team of lawyers told the court that DStv had breached the order by going ahead to enforce the price increase.

See also:  Corporate Affairs Commission To POS Operators: Register Your Business By July 7

DStv is being represented by Moyo Onigbanjo (SAN) and M.K. Adesina among other lawyers.

Onigbanjo informed the court of his pending preliminary objection and application to set aside the orders of the court.

But Oyeniji objected and drew the attention of the court to his application for interlocutory injunction, adding that DSTV had disobeyed the orders of the court and that relevant applications for contempt proceedings had been filed.

The court then adjourned the matter till May 5, 2015 for the argument of the preliminary objection.

It is after that it will then take arguments on the motion for interlocutory injunction, which had earlier been scheduled for the day.

It would be recalled that the orders of injunction were stated to be pending before the said argument of the motion on notice. [myad]

Leave a Reply