The Federal High Court in Abuja has set a date for judgment in the case filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
Justice James Kolawole Omotosho scheduled the judgment for May 8, following the adoption and argument of written submissions by lawyers representing both parties.
Previously, the court had issued a restraining order preventing the FCCPC from taking any “administrative steps” against MultiChoice due to its price hike for DStv and GOtv services. The order came after MultiChoice requested court protection from potential sanctions by the FCCPC for increasing prices.
At the hearing on Thursday, March 27, the court granted the FCCPC’s request for more time to regularize its processes. The court also allowed MultiChoice to withdraw its application for an interlocutory injunction, which had been overtaken by events.
MultiChoice’s lead counsel, Moyosore Onigbanjo SAN, argued that the core issue was whether the FCCPC had the authority to control the price at which MultiChoice offers its services. While acknowledging the Commission’s regulatory powers, Onigbanjo argued that the FCCPC’s founding law does not grant it the authority to regulate prices. He pointed out that even the President, who has the power to regulate prices, has stated that his government does not believe in price controls, instead allowing market forces to determine prices. He also argued that the FCCPC had no right to prevent price increases if it cannot regulate them.
MultiChoice further accused the FCCPC of discrimination, claiming that other businesses had raised prices in response to economic conditions and inflation without the Commission intervening.
In response, the FCCPC’s lead counsel, Prof Joe Agbugu SAN, argued that the case was about the legality of the price increase, not price regulation. He revealed that after MultiChoice announced the price increase for March 1, 2025, the FCCPC had written to the company in February and asked it to delay the price hike. Agbugu contended that the FCCPC’s mandate includes checking for excessive pricing and abuse of market dominance, particularly by dominant players like MultiChoice.
Justice Omotosho reserved the judgment until May 8.