court orders Federal Government to fix price of bicycles and its spare parts

court orders Federal Government to fix price of bicycles and its spare parts

3 minutes, 19 seconds Read

court orders Federal Government to fix price of bicycles and its spare parts

Image: W. Bulach

 

Court orders Federal Government to fix price of Bicycles and its spare parts.

On Wednesday, the Federal Government was given a seven-day deadline by the Federal High Court in Lagos to set the pricing of goods and petroleum products.

Fairness Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa gave the government explicit instructions to set prices for milk, flour, sugar, salt, and other food items.

He also directed the government to set prices for matches, bicycles, motorbikes, and their spare parts, as well as for motor vehicles, kerosene, diesel, and Premium Motor Spirit.

The ruling was issued by the judge in the course of delivering judgement in a lawsuit filed by human rights activist Mr. Femi Falana against the Price Control Board and the Attorney-General of the Federation, who were named as the first and second defendants, with suit number FHC/L/CS/869/2023.

Falana had petitioned the court to ascertain if the first respondent is fulfilling its obligation under Section 4 of the Price Control Act to impose a price on any goods of the type listed in the First Schedule to the Price Control Act.

Falana stated: “A declaration that the respondents’ failure or refusal to fix the prices of motor vehicles and spare parts, flour, matches, milk, bicycles and spare parts, salt, sugar and petroleum products, including motor spirit, kerosene, diesel and petrol, is illegal as it violates the provisions of Section 4 of the Price Control Act, Cap., Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

” Section 4 (1) of the Price Control Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 served as the foundation for the notice motion, as the plaintiff Falana told the court during the case’s hearing on Wednesday.

Additionally, he informed the court that although the defendants in the lawsuit have been served with court documents since it was filed in May 2023, they have declined to reply to them or submit a countersuit.

As a result, Falana implored the court to grant all of the requested reliefs because the respondents had not responded. Following Falana’s submission, Justice Lewis-Allagoa noted that the respondents had not submitted a countersuit.

The judge declared that “all the reliefs contained in the motion paper are hereby granted as prayed,” citing previously decided instances.

The first defendant, the Price Control Board, was established by the Price Control Act and is tasked with fixing a price on goods to stabilise the general price level, preventing the hoarding of goods, and protecting customers from exorbitant prices, among other things, according to Falana’s affidavit in support of the motion, which was deposed to by Taiwo E. Olawanle, a lawyer in his chambers.

The nation’s chief legal officer is the second defendant. Additionally, he said that the plaintiff has been actively defending and advancing human rights in Africa for more than thirty years and that numerous national and international organisations have acknowledged him for his human rights efforts.

“The following commodities are listed in the Price Control Act: bicycles and its spare parts, flour, matches, milk, motorcycles and spare parts, motor vehicles and spare parts, petroleum products, salt, and sugar,” the deponent claimed he was told by the plaintiff on January 3, 2023.In essence, the Act granted the first respondent the authority to set the pricing for the vast majority of the items mentioned above.

The only petroleum items that have a set price are not being enforced, even though the first respondent is meant to set the price of the commodities mentioned above.

“That the market price of a bag of rice, which was once N8,000, has increased to N45,000. “As time goes on, customers will find it increasingly intolerable as the cost of items continues to rise.

Because they are so anxious to make large gains at the cost of the purchasers, they are not always truthful. “Food prices, which no human being should be denied, are high because the first defendant did not engage in price fixing.

Additionally, consumers bear the brunt of rising products prices since they usually bear the brunt of the consequences.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *