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, and FCCPC’s lawyer, Prof. J.E.O. Abugu, 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 February 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.
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, “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.”
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.
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.”
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 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 February 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 accede to MultiChoice request for March 6, but before then, they should hold on, not to effect the price change on March 1.
The lawyer said on whether the FCCPC has power to regulate prices “there is 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, Sections 80 and 90 (2) of its Act give it the power to supervise and regulate in order to guard the interest of the consumers.
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.
Justice Omotosho subsequently reserved judgement in the matter until May 8.