From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Abuja division of the Federal High Court has reserved judgment for May 8 in the suit by MultiChoice Nigeria against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over the recent hike in subscription fees for DStv and GOtv services.
Justice James Omotosho fixed this after counsel to both parties had adopted their arguments for and against the suit that is challenging the powers of the FCCPC to regulate MultiChoice’s pricing decisions.
In the legal dispute marked FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025, MultiChoice is seeking to stop the FCCPC from sanctioning it over its recent increase in the DStv and Gotv subscription.
Justice Omotosho had, on March 12, following an exparte order that was moved by Onigbanjo, restrained FCCPC from sanctioning the pay-Tv company until the hearing and determination of the substance suit.
The dispute went to court after FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd to provide explanations regarding the March 1 price review of its packages.
Specifically, MultiChoice Nigeria, the parent company of DStv and GOtv, announced a price hike on March 1, 2025, citing inflation and rising operational costs.
The adjustments saw subscription fees increase by up to 25% across various packages:DStv Compact rose from N15,700 to N19,000
Compact Plus increased from N25,000 to N30,000;DStv Premium jumped from N37,000 to N44,500 and GOtv Supa Plus moved from N15,700 to N16,800.
Following the development, 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.
This was after MultiChoice refused to honour the February 27 invitation.
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.
The plaintiff 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.
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.”
Adopting his brief of argument yesterday, MultiChoice’s legal team, led by Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN) contended that Nigeria operates a free-market economy where service providers are not required to seek regulatory approval before adjusting prices.
He argued that the FCCPC Act does not empower the commission to regulate prices, asserting that only the President of Nigeria has such authority.
He further stated that MultiChoice had communicated its planned price increase to the commission via a letter dated February 21, 2025. However, on February 27, the FCCPC ordered the company to suspend the price adjustment.
In response, MultiChoice filed a suit on March 3, challenging the FCCPC’s directive.
Despite the pending litigation, the FCCPC, in a letter dated March 3, allegedly threatened to prosecute MultiChoice for failing to justify its decision to proceed with the price hike.
Onigbanjo insisted that the company was being unfairly singled out, noting that other service providers had also increased prices due to inflation and rising operational costs.
In defense, FCCPC’s counsel, Prof. J.E. Agbugu, maintained that the commission acted within its statutory mandate to protect Nigerian consumers from exploitative pricing.
The FCCPC accused MultiChoice of proceeding with a price hike on March 1, 2025, despite being explicitly ordered on February 27 to maintain its existing pricing structure pending an official review.
Agbugu described the move as a “deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine regulatory authority” and a violation of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018.
“MultiChoice’s actions disrupt market fairness and deny Nigerian consumers the protection afforded under the law,”
He referenced Sections 17(e) and 17(f), 88, 90 and 90 (2) of the FCCPC Act, which empower the commission to investigate price increases, safeguard consumers from unfair business practices, set and publish prices.
Agbugu argued that while the commission does not fix prices, it has the legal authority to scrutinize price hikes to determine if they are exploitative, exorbitant and constitute dominants position in the open market.
“By section 88 of the FCCPC Act, the Commission has powers to regulate exploitative, exorbitant or uncautionable market prices.”
He told the court that MultiChoice refused to honour an invitation by the commission to be interrogated on its proposed price hike effective on March 1, 2025.
“Section 17 (e) of the FCCPC Act gives the commission the powers to invite the plaintiff for inquiry and investigate the proposed price. The defendant invited them via a letter of February 27, 2025. They wrote that the date was not convenient and suggested March 6, 2025, five clear days after the implementation of the price increase.
“In response, the commission wrote that the increase should be put on hold until it’s meeting with the commission”, Agbugu informed the court.
While urging the court to dismissed the suit, Agbugu argued that having refused to honour the invitation to be interrogated on the proposed price, the plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands and the court should refused their reliefs.
“The plaintiff chose to disregard directives, flout regulatory processes, and impede an ongoing inquiry.”
On the issue of alleged discrimination raised by the plaintiff, FCCPC dismissed same contending that it’s regulatory activities are not limited to the plaintiff alone.
He dismissed MultiChoice’s reliance on a previous ruling by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT), stating that the tribunal is not superior to the Federal High Court and cannot set a binding precedent.
Agbugu emphasized that MultiChoice had been invited to explain the basis of its price increase but failed to do so, opting instead to proceed with the adjustment without regulatory engagement.
During the proceedings, the court granted an oral prayer allowing the FCCPC to regularize its counter-affidavit. It also struck out an interlocutory injunction previously sought by MultiChoice, ruling that it had been overtaken by events.
Justice Omotosho queried whether the government could impose price controls in a free-market economy to protect consumers.
In response, Onigbanjo reiterated that only the President had the authority to set price ceilings and that no such directive had been issued.
After listening to both sides, the court reserved judgment until May 8, 2025.