- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Consumer Industries, Oil & Gas and Securities & Investment industries
Introduction
For many years, Nigerian consumers have endured persistent, often
frustrating experiences with some telecommunications service
providers. Among the most common complaints are unauthorised
airtime deductions, unsolicited value-added services, and unfair
billing practices that steadily erode consumers' confidence in
the telecom sector.
In a significant reaffirmation of consumer protection principles, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has once again underscored that subscribers are not at the mercy of network providers. In Anene v. MTN (Nig.) Communications Plc [2025] 16 NWLR (Pt. 2010) 1, the apex court unequivocally condemned unfair and exploitative practices within the telecommunications industry. This decision stands as a watershed moment in the enforcement of consumer rights in Nigeria's digital and telecommunications space.
Facts of the Case
The Respondent, Mr Anene, was an MTN subscriber who observed that his airtime was repeatedly depleted through deductions for a "caller tunes" service to which he never subscribed. The issue became publicly embarrassing on 13 May 2014 when his call was abruptly terminated during a live radio programme after his airtime was exhausted.
Despite lodging a formal complaint, MTN merely refunded ₦700.00 (Seven hundred naira) and claimed that the unsolicited service had been deactivated. However, the unauthorised deductions persisted. With no effective internal remedy, Mr. Anene filed a lawsuit at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory against MTN claiming damages of ₦50,000,000.00 (Fifty million naira) for the hardship and discomfort he suffered due to MTN's systematic monthly deductions of ₦50 (Fifty naira) from his airtime as service charge for caller tunes, which he did not subscribe for. The trial court awarded ₦5,000,000.00 (Five million naira) in his favour as general damages and ₦500,000 as costs, holding that MTN's conduct amounted to an unfair business practice.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal significantly reduced the damages from ₦5,000,000.00 (Five million naira) to ₦400,000.00 (Four hundred thousand naira), appearing to downplay the gravity of the violation. Dissatisfied, Mr. Anene appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decisively intervened, restoring the awards made by the trial court and holding that MTN was unable to prove its case that Mr. Anene subscribed to the caller tunes service. Idris, JSC, held as follows at Page 28 Para B-C:
"Therefore, I am of the unshaken opinion that the reduction of the N5,000,000 general damages awarded by the trial Court to N400,000.00 by the Court below was so ridiculous that it defeated the very essence of awarding general damages in the case and consequently amounted to an unjustified substitution of the trial Court's award, given the evidence before the Court below."
Instructively, the Supreme Court also emphasised that service providers must be held accountable where their practices are arbitrary, exploitative, or dismissive of consumer complaints. Ogunwumiju, JSC at Page 46 Para B-B of the judgment, held as follows:
"Impunity of service providers who willfully cheat consumers and unrepentantly pursue contentious litigation instead of arbitration, apology and reparation must be discouraged by the courts. The courts must not sabotage public policy which protect the citizenry."
The judgment represents a bold and practical affirmation of consumer rights in Nigeria.
Key Consumer Rights Affirmed by the Decision of the Court
- Right to Informed Consent
At the heart of the consumer–network provider relationship lies the principle of informed consent. A network provider has no legal basis to activate services or make deductions from a subscriber's airtime without the subscriber's clear and voluntary opt-in. Any deduction for unsolicited services, whether branded as caller tunes, value-added services, or promotional packages, constitutes an unfair business practice and is legally indefensible. - Right to Transparent and Accurate Information
Consumers are entitled to clear, accurate, and timely information regarding the nature, cost, duration, and terms of any service offered. Hidden charges, ambiguous notifications, or technical explanations designed to obscure the true source of deductions fall short of the standards of transparency and fairness emphasised by the Supreme Court and guaranteed under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA).
3. Right to Freedom of Choice
Network providers cannot impose services under the guise of default
settings, automated activations, or alleged system errors. The law
protects the consumer's autonomy to choose which services to
subscribe to and, equally, which to decline, without suffering
financial loss or service disruption.
4. Right to Fair and Reasonable Service Delivery
Subscribers are entitled to expect that services will be delivered in a manner that a reasonable person would consider fair. Persistent unauthorised deductions, ineffective complaint resolution mechanisms, or failure to permanently deactivate unwanted services constitute a breach of this standard and expose service providers to legal liability.
5. Right to Redress and Compensation
Where a network provider infringes these rights, the consumer is entitled not only to a refund of deducted sums but also to compensation. As affirmed in Anene v. MTN, the courts will not hesitate to award substantial general damages where a provider's conduct is oppressive, arbitrary, or exploitative. Awards of costs may also be made to mitigate the financial burden of seeking judicial redress.
6. Right to Regulatory Protection and Enforcement
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) ensures that consumers are not left to confront powerful companies alone. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), along with accredited consumer protection bodies, is empowered to investigate complaints, sanction unfair practices, and enforce compliance, thereby strengthening accountability across sectors of the Nigerian economy.
Lessons for Service Providers
Service providers must be proactive rather than reactive or defensive when handling complaints from customers. In this case, although MTN wrote a letter to Mr. Anene stating that it had deactivated the caller tunes service on 30 May 2014, Mr. Anene was able to present evidence to the Court showing that a ₦50 (Fifty naira) charge was deducted for caller tunes from his airtime balance on 19 June 2014, 19 July 2014, 14 August 2014, 18 August 2014, and 17 September 2014. This makes it important for companies to ensure that when they tag a complaint as resolved, it has truly been resolved to the customer's satisfaction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Anene v. MTN
elevates consumer protection from an abstract principle to an
enforceable reality. It sends a clear message that service
providers must operate within the bounds of consent, transparency,
and fairness. Nigerian consumers are not only entitled to these
protections but are also legally empowered to challenge abuses and
obtain meaningful compensation where those rights are violated.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
