This judgment follows an earlier interim order granted by the same court, which had temporarily restrained the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from taking any administrative action against MultiChoice Nigeria in response to its announced price adjustments for its DStv and GOtv services. The interim order was secured by MultiChoice's legal counsel, Moyosore J. Onigbanjo (SAN), who argued that the FCCPC was continuing to issue cease and desist letters and threatening further sanctions despite ongoing litigation initiated by the pay-TV company.
The legal contention arose after the FCCPC summoned MultiChoice Nigeria to provide a detailed explanation for the announced price hikes. The Commission had scheduled an investigative hearing with the company's Chief Executive Officer for February 27, 2025, citing concerns over the frequency of price adjustments, potential abuse of market dominance, and alleged anti-competitive practices within the pay-TV industry. The FCCPC had also issued a stern warning that failure to adequately justify the price increases or adhere to fair market principles could lead to regulatory sanctions.
In response, MultiChoice's legal team, spearheaded by Mr. Onigbanjo, filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the FCCPC and its officials from prosecuting the company based on a letter dated March 3, 2025, arguing a lack of fair hearing in the Commission's actions. They further sought a court order restraining the FCCPC and its agents from imposing any sanctions on MultiChoice related to its price increases.
A key argument presented by Mr. Onigbanjo was that Nigeria operates under a free-market economy, where the pricing of goods and services is generally not subject to regulatory control. He contended that the FCCPC Act and other relevant laws do not grant the Commission the authority to regulate prices or mandate businesses to seek approval before adjusting their service costs.
During a court session held on March 27, 2025, the FCCPC's counsel, Prof. Joe Agbugu (SAN), countered these arguments by emphasizing that the Commission's actions at the time MultiChoice initiated the legal proceedings were not related to price regulation or fixing. He asserted that the FCCPC is legally mandated to regulate instances of alleged abuse of dominant market positions, particularly when such actions negatively impact Nigerian consumers.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Onigbanjo dismissed the FCCPC's concerns about excessive pricing as an afterthought, highlighting that the Commission's initial communication focused on the price increases themselves – an area he maintained fell outside the FCCPC's regulatory purview.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, Justice Omotosho reserved judgment until Thursday, May 8, 2025.
In delivering his judgment, Justice Omotosho addressed the issue of a pre-action notice, stating that the failure to serve such a notice typically renders a finance-related suit a nullity. However, he also noted that this requirement could be waived if the opposing party fails to raise the issue during proceedings, which he did in this case regarding the FCCPC's belated raising of the matter.
Crucially, Justice Omotosho focused on the fact that MultiChoice was aware of a similar pending suit filed by a lawyer, Festus Onifade, before another division of the court. He concluded that the current suit brought by MultiChoice constituted an "abuse of court process" as the company could have raised its grievances within the existing legal action.
Despite dismissing the suit on the grounds of abuse of process, Justice Omotosho proceeded to address the substantive issue of price regulation based on the "balance of convenience." He affirmed that while the FCCPC is a federal government agency, it must operate within the confines of its statutory powers. The judge clarified that although the FCCPC has the authority to declare market dominance and address discriminatory pricing, it must do so after conducting a thorough investigation into the practices of the company in question.
Justice Omotosho found that, based on the evidence presented, the FCCPC had issued a directive to suspend MultiChoice's price increase before initiating any formal investigation. He explicitly stated that the "FCCPC is not vested with the power to suspend the price hike of an entity before conducting an investigation," asserting that the Commission had acted beyond its legal authority in issuing the directive.
Furthermore, Justice Omotosho reiterated that Nigeria operates a free market economy, where the power to regulate prices and establish a price control board against defaulting foreign companies or regulated goods and services rests exclusively with the President of Nigeria. He clarified that the FCCPC's role in price fixing is advisory only, unless the President specifically delegates such powers to the Commission through a formal "instrument." The judge emphasized that for the President to regulate prices, it must typically encompass an entire industry, rather than targeting a single market player.
While acknowledging the FCCPC's authority to make rules regarding anti-competition and consumer protection, Justice Omotosho explicitly excluded the power to fix prices. He also referenced a 2022 ruling by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, which affirmed MultiChoice's right to increase its prices, while acknowledging consumers' right to choose alternative pay-TV platforms. Justice Omotosho further suggested that the FCCPC appeared to be unfairly targeting MultiChoice while seemingly overlooking the pricing strategies of other pay-TV and online streaming services in Nigeria.
"Prices cannot be regulated in a free market economy. Attempt to fix prices will only scare investors away," Justice Omotosho asserted.
However, despite these pronouncements on the FCCPC's powers regarding price regulation, the judge ultimately concluded that MultiChoice's suit was indeed an abuse of the court process and consequently dismissed the case.
MultiChoice had previously announced planned price increases for its DStv and GOtv packages, slated to take effect on March 1, 2025. These proposed adjustments included significant hikes across various bouquets, such as a 25% increase for DStv Compact (from N15,700 to N19,000), a 20% rise for DStv Compact Plus (from N25,000 to N30,000), and a 20% increment for DStv Premium (from N37,000 to N44,500), among other adjustments to GOtv packages.
These planned increases followed a previous price adjustment in May 2024, which the company attributed to inflationary pressures and rising operational costs. The announcement of further hikes triggered widespread concern among Nigerian consumers, who often cite the limited competition within the pay-TV market as a contributing factor to such increases.
In response to the latest planned adjustments, the FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria to justify the rationale behind the price changes and subsequently filed a lawsuit in a Lagos High Court, alleging violations of regulatory directives and obstruction of an ongoing inquiry. MultiChoice's legal team, however, maintained that the company was being unfairly singled out, arguing that other service providers had also implemented price increases due to similar economic factors.