Pay-TV provider StarTimes has denied claims by the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) the provider infringed on customers’ rights to view free-to-air (FTA) channels, and has requested the legal suit against it by COFEK be stayed by the court.
HumanIPO reported in March Kenya’s Court of Appeal granted digital broadcasting licences to three media houses, Standard Group, Nation Media Group and Royal Media Services, postponed digital migration, and ruled StarTimes, GOtv, Pan African Network and Signet must cease airing FTA channels without obtaining the consent of the three media houses involved in the case.
The ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court,and the providers stopped airing the channels pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court decision, prompting COFEK to demand the channels be reinstated within seven days or the consumer body would take legal action.
In May COFEK begun legal proceedings at the High Court against StarTimes and GOtv, claiming the providers had sold their products to consumers with the promise of airing FTA channels, and as such owe compensation to affected customers.
StarTimes yesterday asked the High Court to postpone hearing the COFEK case, pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court ruling which is still outstanding.
StarTimes said customers have never had to pay for FTA channels, and criticised COFEK for attempting to force the payment of compensation while the initial legal case is still in process, reports the Daily Nation.
“The channels previously aired by StarTimes under the ‘must carry rules’ were not paid for by the subscribers,” Leo Lee, StarTimes managing director (MD), said.
“In any case, they were readily and freely available to anyone who had an aerial connected to their TV set.”
Lee said COFEK has not been able to prove anyone was directly financially affected by the cessation of FTA channels, and said the COFEK compensation suit should be put on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
“StarTimes faces two sets of proceedings before two different courts. This would compel us to raise our grounds of appeal at the Supreme Court. The scenario might lead to embarrassing rulings from the courts,” Lee said.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock.
