Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8 for judgment in the suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
Justice Omotosho set the date after the lawyers representing both parties presented and argued their written submissions for and against the suit.
Earlier, the court had issued a restraining order preventing the Commission from taking “any administrative steps” against the plaintiff, following an increase in the service prices of its two brands, DStv and GOtv.
This order followed a formal request by MultiChoice seeking court protection from a planned sanction by the FCCPC over the price hike of DStv and GOtv.
During the proceedings, the court granted the Commission’s request for additional time to regularize its processes and allowed the plaintiff to withdraw its application for an interlocutory injunction, which had become irrelevant due to subsequent events.
Arguing its case, MultiChoice’s lead counsel, Onigbanjo, contended that the main issue was whether the defendant had the authority to control the prices at which the plaintiff offers its services to the public.
While acknowledging the Commission’s regulatory powers, the senior counsel argued that the FCCPC Act did not grant it the authority to regulate prices or prevent any entity, including the plaintiff, from increasing its prices.
Additionally, Onigbanjo argued that the matter of whether the defendant can regulate prices had already been litigated between the two parties, with a Tribunal ruling that the Commission does not have the power to regulate the prices of goods and services in the country, except for the President of Nigeria.
The plaintiff’s lawyer also pointed out that even the president, who holds the power to regulate prices, has expressed that his government does not support price controls, stating instead that prices should be determined by market forces of supply and demand.
Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that if the FCCPC has no authority to regulate prices, it cannot prevent the plaintiff from increasing its prices.
MultiChoice also accused the Commission of discrimination, claiming that businesses across the country had been increasing their prices in response to economic conditions and inflation without any intervention from the Commission—except in the case of the plaintiff. They urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought in the suit.
In his counter-affidavit opposing the suit, the defendant’s lead counsel, Professor Joe Agbugu, SAN, urged the court to first address the core issue: the price increase of DStv and GOtv.
Agbugu revealed that the Commission had written to the plaintiff on February 25 after the announcement of the price increase, effective March 1, 2025. He further noted that MultiChoice had been summoned to appear before the Commission on February 27, but requested to reschedule for March 6. In the meantime, the Commission had asked the plaintiff to hold off on the price increase.
He also argued that at the time the action was initiated, there was no issue of price regulation or fixing. Additionally, he stated that the statute establishing the FCCPC grants it the power to monitor exorbitant pricing and regulate abuses of dominant market positions, particularly in relation to pricing and the passing of costs to consumers.
“The plaintiff holds a dominant position in the television and entertainment sectors,” Agbugu argued, emphasizing that the case was not about regulating prices but about the Commission’s authority to investigate potentially exploitative pricing and abuse of dominant market position.
“The Commission’s role is not to dictate specific prices but to determine if the prices are exploitative,” he said, adding that MultiChoice had attempted to avoid investigation into their planned price increase.
Agbugu argued that the case is not about price fixing but about determining whether the price increase was exorbitant, with the Commission’s mandate focused on consumer protection.
In response to the claim of discrimination, the defendant’s lawyer stated that abuse of dominant market position justified singling out the plaintiff for scrutiny over its pricing.
Agbugu concluded by urging the court to dismiss the suit, emphasizing that it attacks the core mission of the Commission to protect consumers. He requested that the plaintiff be returned to the Commission for further investigation.
In his response, Justice Omotosho announced that judgment would be reserved for May 8.
