Court stops Tigo promo

MOBILE

By Nana Appiah-Acquaye, Accra, Ghana

An Accra Fast Track High Court has restrained the management of Millicom Ghana Limited (MGL), operators of Tigo, from promoting, sponsoring, and advertising the on-going promotion known as Tigo House Promotion.

This was after the court had granted part of a National Lotto Authority (NLA) application before it.

NLA had gone to court to seek a declaration that MGL’ s conduct in launching the Tigo House Promotion in March this year constituted breach of terms of settlement filed before the court on February 4 this year.  It was also seeking a declaration that the MGL Tigo House Promotion was not a promotional campaign but in fact, and in law, a lottery, which is prohibited by Section 4 of the National Lotto Act 722.

The court, in granting part of the NLA application, ordered the NLA to give an undertaking to pay any damage to be assessed by the court to the defendant should NLA's action fail at the end of the trial.

The undertaking shall be filed within one week from today, May 17, 2011, the court said. The court was presided over by Mr. Justice Dennis D. Adjei, an Appeal Court Judge.

On March 31, this year, the court granted an interim injunction for 10 days following expiration of interim injunction and NLA repeated the application for injunction on April 6, this year, praying for order to restrain MGL from further conducting and supervising any draw for the House Promotion.

In addition, NLA prayed the court to prevent MGL from engaging in a conduction or behavior that would lead or constitute breach of terms and provision of consent judgment dated on February 17, 2011.

On November 8, 2010, MGL launched the lottery and game of chance by name Tigo Xmas bonanza, and the NLA, having found out dragged them to court but the impasse was settled later. According to NLA, MGL had breached the terms, which was adopted by the court as a consent judgment.

MGL, on the other hand, stated that the promotion was neither a lottery nor in bad faith and therefore the case should be dismissed. It challenged the capacity of NLA for instituting the action and according to MGL, it was the Attorney General who has been empowered by Article 88(4) of the 1992 Constitution to prosecute offences in the name of the State.