If You Are MTN Subscriber In Nigeria , This Is For You !!!!

Effort by a Lagos based lawyer, Oluyinka Oyeniji to stop the Nigeria Communication Commission (NCC) on alleged plan to deactivate millions of MTN subscribers line has failed before the Federal High Court, Lagos.The lawyer alleged that NCC was planning to take the action against MTN and its subscribers following the alleged refusal of the telecommunication company to pay the N1.4 trillion fine slammed on it for alleged unethical practice.
In his bid, Oyeniji dragged NCC and MTN before court, filed suit on behalf of himself and millions of MTN subscribers.

In a motion exparte filed before the court, the plaintiffs want an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent(NCC) from exerting, enforcing any sanctions on the second respondent(MTN), especially on the sum of N1.4 trillion or any sum relating to compliance over subscribers deactivation at all, pending the determination of the motion on notice.
The plaintiff also seek for an order of interim injunction restraining MTN from making any payments regarding the N1.4 trillion penalty exerted and imposed upon it by NCC pending the determination of the motion on notice.
The lawyer also want an order directing parties to maintain the status quo pending the argument of the motion on Notice.

He also seek for an order mandating the first respondent (NCC) to tender documentary evidence of accounts to justify the fines imposed on the second respondent (MTN) as well as other telecommunication operators including the appropriation and disbursement thereof from 2002 till date in accordance with Order 44 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules,2009.
He want the court to grant leave to the applicant for the originating processes to be served outside jurisdiction of the court on the second respondent and for such processes to be marked “CONCURRENT”

However, the judge in his ruling noted that a newspaper publication was a mere speculation which could not be tendered as evidence in court.
The court therefore thrown out the interim order but granted the order seeking to serve the respondents outside jurisdiction of the court.
The matter was adjourned till November 19, 2015 for hearing on the motion on notice.