This is a story of a lone customer who stood against the wrongdoing of a giant company. It is also a story of an advocate who won his case on 2 (two) occasions against a senior advocate. Read the full case here.

Introduction

Mr. Aramide Adeogun, the Respondent in this Appeal decided by the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division was at the inception of the case, the Claimant/Plaintiff in the case at the trial court, meanwhile, Multichoice Nig. Ltd., the Appellant in the Appeal was initially the Defendant.

Before we proceed, it is of note to state that, Mr Aramide Adeogun, being a legal practitioner represented himself in the High Court (trial court) as well as the Court of Appeal and won in both Courts against all odds even though he went head-to-head with a formidable Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who represented Multichoice Nigeria Limited.

The Gist of the Matter

Mr. Adeogun purchased a Nokia phone 5330 sometime in May, 2020 before the commencement of the FIFA 2010 World Cup based on an advert published on MTN’s website which states that MTN, NOKIA and DSTV are having a collaboration that will enable purchasers of the Nokia 5330 phone with a pre-programmed MTN sim card to have free access to 10 DSTV channels on the phone from May 2010 to March, 2011. Amongst the channels includes Super Sport 3N.

Mr. Adeogun purchased the phone at the sum of N28,000 because of the Super Sport 3N channel which will give him access to watch football matches on said phone. However, in September, 2010, shortly after the conclusion of the FIFA 2010 World Cup, DSTV without the consent of Mr. Adeogun stopped airing Super Sport 3N on said phone.

As a result, Mr. Adeogun wrote to Multichoice complaining of their unilateral action of tossing Super Sport 3N. Mr. Adeogun received a response to his letter from Details Nigeria Ltd. instead of Multichoice Details Nigeria Ltd. informing Mr. Adeogun that withdrawal of Super Sport 3N was based on a sound consideration and numerous factors. Details Nig. Ltd also drew Mr. Adeogun’s attention to the Terms and Conditions of the services which provides for change of airing channels upon reasonable notice to its customers. Mr. Adeogun claimed that the unilateral act of Multichoice of withdrawing Super Sport 3N channel from the initial bouquet as advertised amounts to breach of contract.

Multichoice Nig. Ltd. on the other hand denied liability claiming that Mr. Adeogun ought to have sued MTN not Multichoice because the Nokia phone 5330 was advertised on MTN’s website. Multichoice also argued that it is Details Nig. Ltd that was in charge of providing the channels and not Multichoice, therefore, Multichoice is not a proper party to the suit.

What the Trial Court Held

The trial court, presided by Hon. Justice F. Bnakole-Oki after hearing from both sides entered judgment in favour of Mr. Adeogun as follows:

1. IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that the Claimant having purchased a Nokia 5330 through the MTN with Sim + 10 DSTV channels is entitled to view the said 10 DSTV channels which came as a package with the phone (subscription fee) from date of purchase till March 2011 without any interruption whatsoever (subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Agreement).

2. IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that the unilateral action of the Defendant of withdrawing the Supersport 3N channel is illegal and a breach of the Contract of Service to the Claimant.

3. THE SUM of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) as general damages for the breach of the Service Agreement by the Defendant to the Claimant.

4. Cost of this action is assessed at N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira).

Multichoice’s Appeal

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, Multichoice filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division against the judgment and findings of the trial court.

Multichoice’s Arguments

1. Multichoice via its Counsel argued that said contract was between Mr. Adeogun and MTN. Multichoice also argued that it is not privy to the contract because the Nokia 5330 advert was published on MTN’s website.
2. Secondly, Multichoice argued that Details Nig. Ltd. is the provider of DSTV mobile services and that Details Nig. Ltd. is a distinct legal personality from Multichoice, therefore, Mr. Adeogun ought to have filed the case at the trial court against Details Nig. Ltd. as opposed to Multichoice Nig. Ltd.
3. Multichoice further argued that the damages awarded against Multichoice was perverse.

Mr. Aramide Adeogun’s Response

In response to the first argument, Mr. Adeogun drew the Court’s attention to the wordings used in the advertisement of the Nokia 5330 phone. It reads as follows:

“MTN is putting together this innovative service in partnership with Nokia and Multichoice to further enrich the lives of our customers …”

It is crystal clear that Nokia and Multichoice are also parties to the said contract. Mr. Adeogun stated that his issue with the provision of the channels which is the responsibility of Multichoice, the Appellant, hence, necessitating the filing of this case against Multichoice alone.

In responding to Multichoice’s second argument, Mr. Adeogun stated that there was no mention of Details Nig. Ltd. in the advert, as such, Details Nig. Ltd. is not privy to the contract and is also not a proper party to the case. As for the award of damages, Mr. Adeogun argued that award of general damages is at the discretion of the court and it is meant to compensate a victim.

What the Court of Appeal Decided

The Court of Appeal on the 3rd of April, 2023 in its unanimous and well considered judgment delivered by Sirajo, JCA agreed with the legal arguments canvassed by Mr. Adeogun who represented himself and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, thereby upholding the victory of Mr. Adeogun. It is a well settled principle of law that cost follows the event, whereby an unsuccessful party to a case pays the legal costs to the successful party.

In light with that principle, the Court of Appeal further awarded the sum of N200,000 in favour of Mr. Adeogun.

Conclusion

It is clear from the above case between Mr. Adeogun and Multichoice Nig. Ltd. that there was a breach of contract and despite the fact that Mr. Adeogun represented himself and went up against a mega company like Multichoice Nig. Ltd., he was still able to get justice.

The total amount of money which Mr. Adeogun was awarded by the trial judge and the court of appeal amounted to N650,000.00 (Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only and in both courts, Mr. Adeogun was awarded the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) only as the cost of the suit. This means that the Multichoice Nig. Ltd. will pay Mr. Adeogun’s legal fees and considering Mr. Adeogun represented himself, the money would go to him directly.

Written by Luqman