Court orders Airtel to pay a Man N5Million for unsolicited messages
Court Orders Airtel Nigeria To Pay A Man N5Million Over Unsolicited Messages
Justice Jude Okeke of an FCT High Court in Maitama, charged a fine of N5million on Airtel Nig. Ltd for violation of customer’s right to privacy.
Mr Emmanuel Anene on December 21th, 2015 filed against Airtel for continued disturbance through unsolicited messages to his telephone line
Airtel had been ordered to pay Mr Emmanuel Anene N5million naira over unsolicited messages on 2nd of November.
I know some people would like to do so , but 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."
How do you find this? Would you do the same?
Justice Jude Okeke of an FCT High Court in Maitama, charged a fine of N5million on Airtel Nig. Ltd for violation of customer’s right to privacy.
Mr Emmanuel Anene on December 21th, 2015 filed against Airtel for continued disturbance through unsolicited messages to his telephone line
Airtel had been ordered to pay Mr Emmanuel Anene N5million naira over unsolicited messages on 2nd of November.
I know some people would like to do so , but 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."
How do you find this? Would you do the same?
..improvement
ReplyDelete