Mr. Emmanuel Anene is one lucky man!
Today, the Federal High Court, Maitama slammed a N5 million fine on Airtel for the violation of a customer’s right to privacy, this is in accordance with the Consumer Code of Practice Regulations, under the Nigerian Communications Act:
Apparently, Mr. Anene filed a suit against Airtel for its unsolicited messages on December 21st 2015, but it was until the 2nd of November, 2016 that the court ruled in his favor — Airtel has been ordered to pay a sum of N5 million to Mr. Emmanuel Anene.
Before you start having thoughts about doing the same thing, you must bear in mind that the court records showed that the plaintiff’s (Mr. Anene) evidence of claims was served on the defendant and led evidence in the support of same. According to the court:
“The defendant, having received complaints from the plaintiff, but continued to disturb the plaintiff from quiet enjoyment of the line.
“In every wrong there must be a remedy, to vindicate the plaintiff’s right which has been violated in the forth going circumstance by the defendant; the plaintiff shall be awarded damages based on the discretion of the court.
“Against this background putting into consideration the obvious inconviencies, discomfort and the embarrassments the plaintiff had undeniably gone through.
 |
| Mr. Anene at the moment. |
Today, the Federal High Court, Maitama slammed a N5 million fine on Airtel for the violation of a customer’s right to privacy, this is in accordance with the Consumer Code of Practice Regulations, under the Nigerian Communications Act:
Apparently, Mr. Anene filed a suit against Airtel for its unsolicited messages on December 21st 2015, but it was until the 2nd of November, 2016 that the court ruled in his favor — Airtel has been ordered to pay a sum of N5 million to Mr. Emmanuel Anene.
Before you start having thoughts about doing the same thing, you must bear in mind that the court records showed that the plaintiff’s (Mr. Anene) evidence of claims was served on the defendant and led evidence in the support of same. According to the court:
“The defendant, having received complaints from the plaintiff, but continued to disturb the plaintiff from quiet enjoyment of the line.
“In every wrong there must be a remedy, to vindicate the plaintiff’s right which has been violated in the forth going circumstance by the defendant; the plaintiff shall be awarded damages based on the discretion of the court.
“Against this background putting into consideration the obvious inconviencies, discomfort and the embarrassments the plaintiff had undeniably gone through.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We love to hear from you!
Sign in to comment "anonymously" without entering verification text.
Want to be notified when I reply your comment? Tick the "Notify Me" box.
If your comment is unrelated to this post, please drop it at my Facebook page here
THANKS.