The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, fixed May 8 for judgment in a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
By Taiye Agbaje
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, fixed May 8 for judgment in a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
MultiChoice is seeking to stop the FCCPC from sanctioning it over its recent increase in the DStv and Gotv subscription.
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after counsel for the MultiChoice, Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, and FCCPC’s lawyer, Prof. J.E.O. Abugu, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Omotosho had, on March 12, restrained FCCPC from sanctioning the pay-Tv company until the hearing and determination of the substance suit.
The judge gave the order after an ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025 and moved by Onigbanjo to the effect.
NAN reports that the FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd to provide explanations regarding the March 1 price review of its packages.
The commission directed the company’s chief executive officer to appear for an investigative hearing on Feb. 27, raising concerns over frequent price hikes, potential market dominance abuse and anti-competitive practices within the pay-TV industry.
The FCCPC also issued a stern warning, stating that failure to justify the price adjustment or comply with fair market principles would lead to regulatory sanctions.
However in the ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s legal team led by Onigbanjo, the company sought an order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC and its officers from carrying out the threat against it, as communicated via a letter dated March 3, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
It also sought an order restraining the commission and its officers from issuing any further directive or taking any steps capable of disrupting its business activities, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
It further sought an order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC, its agents, servants, or privies from sanctioning or penalising the company in any manner whatsoever in relation to its price increase pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
Upon resumed hearing on Thursday, Onigbanjo informed the court that the matter was slated for hearing of the substantive suit..
He said FCCPC had served them with a counter affidavit and that they had responded with a further affidavit and a reply on points of law.
After counsel to the parties had regularised their processes in the suit, the judge gave them the go-ahead to adopt their applications.
Adopting his processes, Onigbanjo said their originating motion was filed on March 3.
“There are six questions for determination and we seek eight prayers on the face of the originating summons with an affidavit of 48 paragraphs
“Attached are nine exhibits captioned MJO1 to MJO 9,” he said.
The lawyer said the crux of the matter was whether the FCCPC had a right to control the price the company offers its services.
He questioned whether the FCCPC Act, 2018 of the commission, as a regulatory agency, gives it the power to regulate any price.
Making reference to the past decision of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (FCCPT) in Exhibit MJO-4 attached to their application, he argued that the tribunal specifically held that the powers to regulate goods and service are only vested in the president of Nigeria.
He said the tribunal told the plaintiff, who had sought a reversal of its price hike, that the prayers sought were not grantable.
Also making reference to Exhibit MJO-6, which is a copy of a newspaper where the president was interviewed, Onigbanjo quoted the president as saying that his government did not believe in market control but for the market forces to determine the price system.
The lawyer, therefore, submitted that the FCCPC had no power to regulate the company’s price.
“Even the defendant themselves have conceded to this point.
“I refer to their counter affidavit on Paragraph 12 where they said the defendant reiterates that it functions does not include price fixing,” he said.
He further said that in Paragraph 18 of the FCCPC’s counter, the commission agreed that it was not its functions to fix the plaintiff’s price.
“If you don’t have power to control prices, where do you get power to suspend a price increase.
“The law is clear. Even though you are a statutory body, if you act outside your statue, that power will be declared ultravires,” he said.
Onigbanjo equally accused the FCCPC of being discriminatory against his client.
The lawyer, who argued that price increase had affected all businesses in the country today due to the subsidy removal on the petroleum products, the inflationary trend and the fall of naira, alleged that only MultiChoice’s decision to hike its prices attracted FCCPC’s attention.
“How will anybody conducts business without price increase.
“The only person that has not increased price in Nigeria today is the plaintiff (MultiChoice)
“The constitution says we are all equal before the law. We cannot be subjected to discriminatory practice.
“Telecommunications companies increased prices, nobody stopped them; airline companies did theirs, nobody stopped them, even lawyers have increased their fees,” he said.
He alleged that the commission suspended the company’s planned hike in price, even before they appeared before them.
“It is against the principle of fair hearing. They don’t even know at that stage, what the price increase will be,” he said, accusing the commission of taking an administrative decision against his client without recourse to the law.
He urged the court to resolve all the issues in favour of the company.
Responding, Abugu vehemently opposed the reliefs sought in the MultiChoice originating summons.
He said the regulatory agency filed a 34-paragraph counter affidavit dated March 20 with four exhibits attached.
“We adopt all the averments in the counter affidavit and also adopt the written address as our argument in the suit,” he said.
Adumbrating, Abugu submitted that the first thing to address was the cause of action in the suit.
“The court will see the chronicle of events in our paragraphs,” he said.
The lawyer maintained that the supervisory jurisdiction of the commission was confirmed in its established Act, 2018.
He explained that MultiChoice, on Feb. 25, wrote a letter that they planned to increase the tariff for their packages.
He said the commission responded that if the company would be increasing its rates of subscription on March 21, the management should come and explained some issues arising from the notice on Feb. 27.
The senior lawyer argued that Section 17(e) of the Act gives the commission the power to conduct investigation and enquiry.
He said MultiChoice wrote back to the regulatory agency that the Feb. 27 was not convenient and that they would prefer March 6, one week further to the date of the increase.
Abugu said the FCCPC then wrote that it would acceded to MultiChoice request for March 6 but before then, they should hold on, not to effect the price change on March 1.
He argued that based on the Exhibit MJO-3 of the plaintiff, there was no issue of price regulation or price fixing as at the time this action was triggered.
“Section 17(b) and Section 7 spelt out the elaborate functions of defendant,” he said, adding that Section 17(e) and (f) states the power of the commission to eliminate any exploitative action and to protect the consumers’:interest.
According to him, Paragraph 17(f) enjoins the defendant to protect the consumers interests, including the plaintiff (MultiChoice)’s counsel.
“Also, Sections 72 to 78, empower the defendant to regulate the abuse of dominance in the market which may affect the consumers.
“Exhibit MJO-1 of the plaintiff acknowledges that the defendant has supervisory function over them,” he said.
The senior lawyer argued that the suit therefore constituted an abuse of court process because the company itself sought an adjournment of their invitation to March 6 but on the said date, its management never showed up.
He said against this development, on March 3, MultiChoice rushed to court to seek an injunction against the commission.
Besides that, Abugu said that on March 1, the company effected the hike in their tariff, thereby, subjecting Nigerians who are consumers to hardship.
“Clearly, the plaintiff has has not come with clean hands,” he said.
The lawyer said on whether the FCCPC has power to regulate prices, “there is a confusion in the plaintiff’s use of terms.”
He said though the commission does not fix prices for producers of goods and services in the country, Abugu said Sections 80 and 90 (2) of its Act give it the power to supervise and and regulate in order to guard the interest of the consumers.
Reading from Section 90(2), he said; “the commission shall set and cause to be published an authorised price…”
He explained that FCCPC does not apply this section because a report would have to be sent to the president in line with Section 88 of the Act.
“Fixing of prices is regulated under the provision of Section 88 to 91,” he said.
According to him, what is at play here is the power of the defendant to interrogate prices that are considered exploitative pricing; so it has power to interrogate indiscriminate pricing.
“What they have just done is that they ran away from the opportunity to be interrogated on the appropriate pricing
“Hence, this court is not the appropriate forum to come. They ran away and they still want to run away,” he said.
While denying the allegation that the commission applied a discriminatory practice against the company, the lawyer explained that the action was not about price fixing.
He said the mandate of the commission is to protect the consumers, not just in the pay-TV industry but other sectors of the economy.
“Therefore, the plaintiff is not the only authority that has been subjected to this
“Section 70 is the guiding principle of the commission under Part 9 which talks about abuse of dominance position,” he said.
He said the allegations that the company was being targeted is not tenable in law.
Countering Onigbanjo’s argument on the issue of the tribunal ruling, Abugu said MultiChoice Exhibit MJO-5 confirmed that such was not the decision of the tribunal.
“So it is not correct.
“Moreover, the tribunal is an inferior court to this court,” he said.
According to him, it is our humble submission that this originating summons strikes at the core of the regulatory power of the defendant.
“It defeats the very essence of the established Act of the commission,” he said.
The lawyer argued that the action of the company had portrayed them as an authority to themselves.
Abugu, who also described the action as a challenge to the law of the nation, urged the court to send the company back to the commission if it has a cause.
Justice Omotosho subsequently reserved judgement in the matter until May 8.(NAN)
