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.