MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) have approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja, seeking its intervention regarding the Pay TV’s DStv and GOtv price hikes in Nigeria.
This is according to the notices of appeal and cross-appeal filed by the pay-TV company and the FCCPC, exclusively obtained by Naijaonpoint.
They are challenging aspects of the subsisting judgment of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, which pertains to their respective roles as a multinational company and regulatory authority.
Naijaonpoint previously reported, on May 8, 2025, that the Federal High Court, per Justice Omotosho, had dismissed MultiChoice Nigeria Limited’s suit seeking the upholding of its DStv and GOtv price increases in Nigeria.
MultiChoice’s lawyer, Moyosore J. Onigbanjo (SAN), had argued that the FCCPC lacks statutory powers to stop MultiChoice from fixing its prices because Nigeria operates a free-market economy where the prices of goods and services are not regulated.
However, FCCPC’s counsel, Prof. Joe Agbugu (SAN), emphasized that the Commission is authorized by law to regulate alleged abuses of dominant market positions, especially when such abuses affect Nigerian consumers.
Justice Omotosho eventually passed the judgment, saying that the pay TV’s suit amounted to an “abuse of court process.”
In determining that the MultiChoice suit was an “abuse of court process,” Omotosho observed that there is a pending suit by one lawyer, Festus Onifade, against the pay-TV company before another court division of the same coordinate jurisdiction, adding that the two suits are similar.
The judge held that MultiChoice’s legal team was aware of the pending suit filed by Barrister Festus Onifade before filing the instant suit.
However, Omotosho agreed that Nigeria operates a free market economy, where only the President of Nigeria has the exclusive power to regulate prices and to set up a price control board against any defaulting foreign companies or regulated goods and services.
He added that the FCCPC only has an advisory role on the issue of price fixing and can only regulate prices if the President of Nigeria delegates such powers to the Commission via an “instrument.”
Omotosho also held that from the facts before the court, investigation had yet to begin before the FCCPC issued the suspension directive to MultiChoice, faulting the Commission for having “acted beyond its power.”
Disagreeing with part of Omotosho’s judgment regarding “abuse of court process,” MultiChoice’s lawyer, Onigbanjo, raised three grounds of appeal, dated May 19, 2025:
“The issues in the instant Suit and Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 between Festus Sanmi Onifade vs. MultiChoice Nigeria Limited & Anor, are different. The parties in both suits are also different,” the senior lawyer maintained.
“The issue of abuse of court process between the instant Suit and Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 between Festus Sanmi Onifade vs. MultiChoice Nigeria Limited & Anor was raised suo moto (on his own) by the learned trial judge without any invitation to the parties to address the court on the matter,” Onigbanjo argued.
“The Court below erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice, when it relied on and ascribed an erroneous, opposite and contrary interpretation to Exhibit MOJ05 that the FCCPC has no power to regulate prices in a free market economy,” the Commission added.
“The Court below erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice, when it relied on and ascribed an erroneous, opposite and contrary interpretation to Exhibit MOJ05 that the FCCPC has no power to regulate prices in a free market economy,” the Commission added.
The development highlights the latest move by the parties to resolve the price increase of MultiChoice in Nigeria.
Pending judgment by the Appeal Court, the verdict of the High Court is subsisting except if it is suspended by a stay of execution directive.
The outcome of the appeal will apparently impact public perception of the parties’ respective roles.