BD LAW DIGEST WITH CLRN & ALP NG & Co.

EZUGWE EMMANUEL ANENE v. MTN NIGERIA COMMUNICATIONS PLC

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

(OKORO; OGUNWUMIJU; ABUBAKAR; TSAMMANI; IDRIS; JJ.S.C)

FACTS

Ezugwe Emmanuel Anene (“the Appellant”) experienced frequent and unexplained deductions of airtime by MTN Nigeria Communications PLC (“the Respondent”) over a considerable period. On 18 May 2014, while participating in a live radio programme on Vision FM 92.1 Abuja, the Appellant’s call was abruptly disconnected due to insufficient airtime. Consequently, he was unable to reconnect to the programme, and incoming calls from other contributors further impeded his attempts to rejoin the discussion. The Appellant became deeply frustrated and embarrassed by this occurrence.
Subsequently, upon reviewing the notifications and text messages sent to his phone, the Appellant discovered that the Respondent had been responsible for the continued depletion of his airtime, purportedly as deductions for a caller tunes service to which he had never subscribed. As a politician who values active participation in political discourse as a means of contributing to democratic development, the Appellant felt particularly aggrieved by this interference. The Appellant formally complained to the Respondent, protesting the unlawful deductions. Following an exchange of correspondence, the Respondent claimed to have deactivated the unauthorized caller tunes service and refunded ₦700 airtime to the Appellant, with an assurance that no further illegal deductions would occur. However, only a few weeks later, the deductions resumed, escalating in what the Appellant described as geometric proportions. These deductions persisted despite the Respondent’s earlier undertaking and despite the Appellant’s continued lack of subscription to the service.

Feeling continuously subjected to embarrassment, inconvenience, emotional distress, and deprivation of the quiet enjoyment of his airtime, the Appellant instituted an action before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The trial court found in his favour and awarded Five Million Naira (₦5,000,000.00) as general damages and Five Hundred Thousand Naira (₦500,000.00) as costs of action.

Dissatisfied, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. Although the Court of Appeal affirmed the findings of liability made by the trial court, it reduced the awards to ₦400,000.00 as general damages and ₦100,000.00 as costs. Still discontented with the substantial reduction in monetary compensation, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues for determination was: Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in interfering with the award of N5,000,000.00 as general damages in the circumstances of the case.

ARGUMENTS

The Appellant’s learned counsel submitted that the Appellant never subscribed to any caller tunes service, yet the Respondent persistently deducted his airtime without authorization. He argued that despite the Appellant’s earlier complaint and the Respondent’s express undertaking to deactivate the service and permanently halt further deductions, the unauthorized deductions continued unabated. Counsel maintained that these repeated unlawful deductions amounted to blatant breach of the Appellant’s consumer rights, constituting a violation of the contractual obligation owed by the Respondent to ensure the Appellant’s quiet and uninterrupted enjoyment of the airtime he had lawfully purchased.

He further contended that the disruption suffered by the Appellant while attempting to participate in a live political radio programme, and the public embarrassment and frustration that followed, were direct and foreseeable consequences of the Respondent’s wrongful conduct. Learned counsel emphasized that the Appellant, being a political figure who regularly relies on telecommunications services to contribute to national discourse, suffered actual discomfort, distress, and reputational impact. In his submission, the trial court was fully justified in awarding general damages of ₦5,000,000.00, as the harm extended well beyond the mere economic value of airtime deductions. He argued that there was no legitimate basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the trial Judge’s discretionary assessment of damages, which was made in accordance with established legal principles and the justice of the case.

Conversely, the Respondent, represented by learned Senior Counsel, argued that the Appellant had at all material times been a willing subscriber to the MTN Caller Tunez service. The Respondent maintained that the deductions of ₦50.00 were valid and consistent with the monthly subscription terms to which the Appellant purportedly assented. He emphasized that the airtime deductions were neither arbitrary nor unauthorized but formed part of a legitimate commercial transaction.

The Respondent further submitted that upon receiving the Appellant’s complaint, it acted promptly and responsibly by deactivating the service on 30 May 2014 and refunding the total sum of ₦700.00, representing all amounts previously charged for the service. He argued that these acts of the Respondent was a demonstration of good faith and efficient customer service rather than any malicious or unlawful intent. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the trial court’s award of ₦5,000,000.00 was grossly excessive, irrational, punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate to the minimal value of the deductions complained about. He asserted that to uphold such an award would amount to unjust enrichment of the Appellant and an unwarranted financial penalty on the Respondent.

Learned Silk maintained that the Court of Appeal acted correctly in reviewing and reducing the damages to ₦400,000.00 and the cost of action to ₦100,000.00, arguing that these revised figures were fair, reasonable, and more reflective of any inconvenience, if at all, suffered by the Appellant. Finally, he submitted that the intervention of the Appellate court prevented a clear miscarriage of justice that would have arisen from enforcing a disproportionate and legally unsustainable damages award.

DECISION OF THE COURT

In resolving this issue, the Supreme Court held that:

A consumer is entitled to the timely and proper performance of services, delivered in a manner that a reasonable person would ordinarily expect. The Court explained that once a service provider undertakes to render a service, it must be executed timeously, efficiently, and in a manner that satisfies the consumer’s contractual and statutory rights. Where any delay, defect, or failure occurs, the consumer is entitled to prompt notice and an appropriate remedy. The Supreme Court emphasized that when a service provider fails to uphold consumer rights, the aggrieved consumer is entitled to adequate redress. Such remedies may include the correction of the defect, a refund of the price paid (in whole or in part), and compensation for any consequential loss or damage. The Court decried the growing impunity of service providers who persist in wrongful conduct and needless litigation rather than offering prompt redress, apology, or compensation, warning that such behaviour must be firmly discouraged. It stressed that courts must not undermine the public policy objective of protecting consumers from exploitation and abuse by corporate entities.

In the instant case, the Supreme Court found that the Appellant had indeed suffered repeated and unauthorised deductions from his airtime, resulting in inconvenience, frustration, and embarrassment. The Court held that the trial court was right to award ₦5,000,000.00 as general damages and further awarded the Appellant ₦3,000,000.00 as costs.

Issue resolved in favour of the Appellant.

J. Ugwanyi, Esq., with him, M. Nwangwu, Esq., for the Appellant.
O. Ogbonna, SAN (with him, O. Aju, Esq., B. Swanta, Esq., F. Yohanna, Esq., M. Sambo, Esq. And O. Owonta, Esq., for the Respondent.
This summary is fully reported at (2025) 11 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com; www.alp.company.