*Justice James Omotoso of the Federal High Court, in Abuja, fixes May 8, 2025, for judgement in the suit MultiChoice Nigeria Limited has filed against the country’s Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission

Isola Moses | 绿帽献妻

Justice James Omotoso of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8, 2025, for judgement in the suit, which MultiChoice Nigeria Limited has filed against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).

Justice Omotoso fixed the date after lawyers representing the parties adopted and argued their written addresses for and against the suit.

绿帽献妻 reports MultiChoice Nigeria recently jacked up tariffs for two of its brands: DSTv and GOTv.

Earlier, the Nigerian court had restrained the FCCPC from taking 鈥渁ny administrative steps鈥� against the plaintiff (MultiChoice).

The restraining order followed a formal request by MultiChoice, seeking the court鈥檚 protection from planned sanction from the FCCPC, over the price increases DSTv and GOTv services.

It was gathered during the proceedings, the court granted the market regulatory Commission鈥檚 request for an extension of time to regularise its processes and also allowed the plaintiff to withdraw its application for interlocutory injunction which has been overtaken by event.

In its defence, MultiChoice through Onigbanjo, its lead counsel emphasised that the bone of contention is 鈥渨hether the defendant has the right to control the price at which the plaintiff offers its services to the public.鈥�

The company’s lead counsel also acknowledged the regulatory powers of the Commission.

He, however, argued that the Act establishing the FCCPC did not confer on it the powers to regulate price or prevent anyone, including the plaintiff from increasing its product and service prices.

Onigbanjo as well argued that the issue of whether the defendant could regulate price has been litigated before, between the two parties.

The defendant’s counsel noted the Tribunal ruled that the Commission has no powers to regulate prices of goods and services in the country, except the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The MultiChoice counsel also submitted that even the President, who has powers to regulate prices has maintained 鈥渢hat his government does not believe in price control.鈥�

Referencing the President’s submission, the counsel said prices are determined by market forces of demands and supplies in the economy.

According to Onigbanjo, if the FCCPC has no powers to control price 鈥渨here does he have the powers to prevent the plaintiff from increasing price?

MultiChoice subsequently, accused the Commission of discrimination.

The defendant really said that all businesses in Nigeria have been increasing their prices in line with economic conditions and inflation without the Commission’s interference except with the plaintiff.

Onigbanjo, therefore, prayed the court to grant all the defendant’s reliefs sought in the suit.

Adopting his counter affidavit in opposition to the suit, Prof. Joe Agbugu, SAN, lead counsel for the defendant, urged the court to first address the cause of action, which is the the issue of increases in the tariffs of DSTv and GOTv.

Agbugu disclosed that the Commission February 25, wrote to the plaintiff after the pay-TV company had announced price increases, effective from March 1, 2025.

Agbugu said MultiChoice was summoned to appear before the Commission l February 27 this year.

Quoting the FCCPC, he counsel stated 鈥渢hey wrote that it was not convenient and proposed March 6. “We then said that in the interim, they should hold on with the price increments.鈥�

Agbugu also argued that, 鈥渢here was no issue of price regulation or fixing as at the time the action commenced.鈥�

Besides, he claimed that the statute establishing the FCCPC gave it 鈥減owers to check exorbitant pricing鈥� and also powers to 鈥渞egulate abuse of dominant position in the market鈥�, as it relates to prices and passing of cost to the consumer.

鈥淭he plaintiff occupies a dominant position in the television and entertainment,鈥� said he.

Agbugu further claimed that the case before the court is not of price regulation, but the powers of the Commission to investigate prices that are deemed exploitative and abuse of dominant position.

The counsel further said: 鈥淭he Commission is not to tell you to use price A or B but to determine that the price is exploitative鈥�, noting 鈥渢hey ran away to be investigated over their planned action.

鈥淥ur action is not about price fixing; the issue is about whether the price is exorbitant鈥� the mandate of the Commission is to protect the consumer.鈥�

In regard to the claim of discrimination, defendant鈥檚 lawyer, submitted that, 鈥渁buse of dominant position qualified them to be singled out for exorbitant pricing.鈥�

Agbugu subsequently, asked the court to strike out the suit, and dismiss it because it attacks the major task of the Commission of protecting consumers.

鈥淭he suit should be dismissed and the plaintiff returned to us for investigation.”

Justice Omotoso, in his response, announced that, 鈥渏udgment is reserved to May 8.鈥�

Kindly Share This Story