The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Thursday, dismissed a suit that MultiChoice Nigeria Limited filed to challenge the intervention of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) in the recent increase in DStv and Gotv subscription fees.
The court, in the judgement that was delivered by Justice James Omotosho, held that the suit constituted an abuse of court process since the same subject matter is pending before another court.
It held that the plaintiff ought to have ventilated its grievances against the FCCPC before that court instead of engaging in a multiplicity of actions.
Nevertheless, Justice Omotosho faulted the FCCPC, noting that though its Establishing Act conferred it with investigative powers, it lacks the authority to fix or suspend prices unless specifically delegated by the President through a gazetted instrument.
The trial judge noted that no such instrument was adduced before the court.
“The power to fix prices is exclusively that of the president. Any decision taken without such delegation is a nullity,” the court added.
More so, it stressed that Nigeria operates a free market system where service providers like MultiChoice retain the right to set their prices, with consumers free to accept or reject them.
The court further ruled that FCCPC’s actions, including directing MultiChoice to suspend its price increase, breached the company’s right to a fair hearing, as it appeared to have been selectively targeted.
It also dismissed as untenable FCCPC’s contention that MultiChoice held a dominant market position.
“The use of services like those provided by the plaintiff is discretionary and not essential. Nigeria can do without it,” Justice Omotosho held, warning that attempts to fix prices by regulatory bodies could scare off investors and harm the nation’s economy.
According to the court, while the FCCPC may investigate market practices, it cannot impose price controls without proper legal backing.
It will be recalled that the FCCPC had, on February 27, directed MultiChoice to maintain its old pricing structure for DStv and GOtv, pending the conclusion of an examination of its proposed increase of the subscription fees.
Notwithstanding the directive, the company proceeded with the price increase on March 1, even as it approached the high court, praying it to stop the FCCPC from sanctioning it over the tariff hike.
In a ruling it delivered on March 12, the court granted an interim order that restrained FCCPC from taking any action against the company, pending the final determination of its suit.
While MultiChoice, through its team of lawyers led by Mr Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, prayed the court to uphold its right to fix prices for its products, the FCCPC, represented by its own legal team led by Mr J.E.O. Abugu, SAN, urged the court to hold that the condition precedent for such an increase was not met.
The FCCPC had accused MultiChoice of deliberately undermining its regulatory authority, insisting that its decision to flout its directive was a calculated attempt to “disrupt market fairness and deny Nigerian consumers the protection afforded under the law”.
“By disregarding the FCCPC’s directive and implementing the price hike before appearing before the Commission’s investigative hearing on March 6, 2025, MultiChoice has not only flouted regulatory processes but also demonstrated a pattern of conduct that undermines consumer rights and fair competition.
“In addition to these legal actions, the FCCPC is reviewing further enforcement measures, including sanctions, penalties, and regulatory interventions, to ensure compliance and accountability,” the Commission added.
It subsequently filed a three-count charge against MultiChoice and its Chief Executive Officer, John Ugbe, before the Federal High Court in Lagos, insisting that the defendants had, by their action, committed offences contrary and punishable under sections 33(3), 110 and 159 of the FCCPC Act 2018.
Meanwhile, MultiChoice, in its suit, prayed the court to, among other things, issue an order to restrain 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.
As well as, “An order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC, its agents, servants, or privies from sanctioning or penalising MultiChoice (the applicant) in any manner whatsoever in relation to its price increase pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.”
