Broadcasting
Court Fixes May 8 for Judgment in MultiChoice, FCCPC Dispute over Price Hike
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed May 8 for judgment in the suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
Justice Omotosho fixed the date after lawyers representing the parties adopted and argued their written addresses for and against the suit.
The court had earlier restrained the Commission from taking “any administrative steps” against the plaintiff following an increase in the service price of two of its brands; DStv and GOtv.
The restraining order was a sequel to a formal request by MultiChoice seeking the court’s protection from planned sanction from the FCCPC, over the increase in the price of DStv and GOtv.
At the proceeding, the court granted the Commission’s 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.
Arguing its case, MultiChoice through Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, its lead counsel, submitted that the bone of contention is “whether the defendant have the right to control the price at which the plaintiff offers its services to the public.”
While acknowledging the regulatory powers of the Commission, the senior lawyer 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 prices.
Besides, Onigbanjo stated that the issue of whether the defendant can regulate price has been litigated before between the two parties, adding that the Tribunal had held 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 Plaintiff’s lawyer also submitted that even the president who is clothed with the powers to regulate prices has maintained “that his government does not believe in price control” but, that prices are determined by market forces of demands and supplies.
The plaintiff in addition submitted that if the FCCPC has no powers to control price “where does he have the powers to prevent the plaintiff from increasing price.
MultiChoice subsequently accused the Commission of discrimination, stating that all businesses in the country have been increasing their prices in line with economic conditions and inflation without the Commission raising an eyebrow, save with the plaintiff.
He, therefore, urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought in the suit.
While adopting his counter affidavit in opposition to the suit, Professor Joe Agbugu, SAN, lead counsel for the defendant, urged the court to first address the cause of action; which is the the issue of increase in the price of DStv and GOtv.
Agbugu disclosed that the Commission on February 25, wrote the plaintiff after it announced price increase effective from March 1, 2025.
According to the senior lawyer, MultiChoice was summoned to appear before the Commission on February 27, “they wrote that it was not convenient and proposed March 6. We then said that in the interim they should hold on with the price increment.”
Agbugu further stated that, “there was no issue of price regulation or fixing as at the time the action commenced.”
Besides, he claimed that the statute establishing the FCCPC, gave it “powers to check exorbitant pricing” and also powers to “regulate abuse of dominant position in the market” as it relates to prices and passing of cost to the consumer.
“The plaintiff occupies a dominant position in the television and entertainment,” Agbugu claimed, adding 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 Commission is not to tell you to use price A or B but to determine that the price is exploitative” he said, “they ran away to be investigated over their planned action.
“Our action is not about price fixing; the issue is about whether the price is exorbitant…the mandate of the Commission is to protect the consumer.”
Reacting to the claim of discrimination, defendant’s lawyer, submitted that, “abuse of dominant position qualified them to be singled out for exorbitant pricing.”
Agbugu subsequently urged the court to strike out the suit and dismiss it because it attacks the major task of the Commission of protecting consumers.
“The suit should be dismissed and the plaintiff returned to us for investigation,” he added.
Responding, Justice Omotosho announced that, “judgment is reserved to May 8.”
Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal (CCPT) in Abuja has dismissed a class action suit filed by one Uche Diala and 961 other DStv and GOtv subscribers against MultiChoice Nigeria and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), citing lack of jurisdiction.
The suit challenged MultiChoice’s subscription price increases in November 2023 and May 2024, which the claimants described as arbitrary, exploitative, and unfair.
Diala and others sought to reverse the hikes and compel the company to adopt a more flexible billing model, such as a pay-as-you-view system used in other countries like South Africa.
They also accused MultiChoice of price discrimination against Nigerian consumers.
MultiChoice, through its counsel, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that pricing decisions do not fall within the tribunal’s remit and that the suit was improperly filed as a class action without first seeking the tribunal’s leave.
In its ruling on Thursday, the tribunal’s three-member panel led by Justice Thomas Okosun held that the core issues raised, which were pricing and tariff regulation, fall under the exclusive purview of the executive branch, particularly the President, as stipulated under the Price Control Act.
“The issue of price regulation is a matter that falls within the exclusive purview of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” Okosun stated.
While the tribunal acknowledged it holds both original and appellate jurisdiction under the FCCPC Act, it emphasized that such authority does not cover general price control unless abuse of market dominance is established—a point the claimants failed to prove.
On the procedural matter of filing a class action without prior approval, the tribunal noted that although it is ideal to obtain leave, failure to do so was not fatal in this instance since the claimants demonstrated a shared grievance and common interest.
Nonetheless, the tribunal upheld MultiChoice’s objection, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
“The preliminary objection of the first defendant succeeds,” the panel held. “This suit is accordingly struck out for want of jurisdiction.”
This ruling follows a similar outcome on May 8, when a Federal High Court in Abuja upheld MultiChoice’s price increases after the company sued the FCCPC.
In that judgment, Justice James Omotoso declared that the FCCPC lacked the authority to fix or suspend subscription rates.
MultiChoice Nigeria has slashed the price of its DStv decoder from N20,000 to N10,000, representing a 50 percent drop, in a aim at attracting attract more customers and curb declining subscriptions.
The campaign, titled “We’ve Got You,” was launched on June 16 and will continue until July 31.
Also, as part of its efforts to ease economic pressure on households and improve access to digital TV services, the campaign offers a free upgrade for both active and returning customers.
Speaking on the campaign, John Ugbe, chief executive officer (CEO) of MultiChoice Nigeria, said the initiative reflects the company’s commitment to rewarding loyalty and enhancing daily viewing experiences.
“We want to ensure our customers feel appreciated and have access to the best entertainment every day,” Ugbe said.
“The ‘We’veGot You’ campaign is about making premium content more accessible and showing that DStv offers something for everyone, not just football fans.
“By repositioning itself as a platform for daily value, DStv aims to encourage content discovery across a wider array of genres, including movies, drama, kids’ programming, and news.
“This means more channels, more shows, and more reasons to tune in every day.”
The development comes amid MultiChoice Nigeria’s legal battle with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over price hike.
Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) will, on Oct. 7, arraigned the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Qatar Airways, Mr Temi Birdzell, alongside the company and its top officers, over allegations bordering on breach of FCCPC Act, 2018.
The defendants will be arraigned before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Others to be arraigned with Birdzell are Stella Ihediwa, the Account Manager of the airline; Kennedy Chirchir, the Country Manager and Eva Ojeje, who is the Sales Manager of the company.
Although the arraignment was scheduled for Tuesday, the matter could not proceed.
Upon resumed hearing, none of the defendants was in court.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, none of the defendants was in court due to improper service of the court documents, including the hearing notice, on them.
FCCPC.’s lawyer, Chizenum Nsitem, told the court of their inability to serve four of the defendants, although the company was served.
Nsitem then sought an adjournment to enable them do the needful and the judge adjourned the matter until Oct. 7 for the defendants to take their plea.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the commission, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/200/2025, dragged Qatar Airways, Birdzell, Ihediwa, Chirchir and Ojeje to court as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.
FCCPC, in the application dated May 26 but filed May 27, had preferred a two-count charge against the defendants.
The defendants were alleged to have failed to appear before FCCPC in compliance with a lawful summons of the commission dated Sept. 6, 2024, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 33 (3) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection (FCCPC) Act, 2018.
They were also accused to have on Sept. 18, 2024, intentionally withheld the production of documents in compliance wth a lawful summons of the commission, thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 111 of FCCP Act, 2018.
In count three, they were alleged to have on Sept. 18, 2024, engaged in the contravention of the consumer rights, thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 124(1) and punishable under Section 155 of the same Act.
CCPT Dismisses Class Action Suit against MultiChoice over Tariff Hikes
Flutterwave Named in 2025 TIME100 Most Influential Companies List
GSK to Slash Cost of Malaria Jab to Less than $5
Households Earning ₦250,000 Or Less Monthly Won’t Pay Tax – Oyedele
Rack Centre Signs Collocation Deal with TelCables Nigeria
General News2 days agoOpenAI Unveils New AI Agent for Software Developers
Telecom2 days ago15 African Startups Using AI Selected for Google Accelerator Cohort 9
Telecom2 days agoMTN Nigeria Receives UN Women Award for Empowering Women Nationwide
Telecom2 days agoUS Bans Use of WhatsApp on Official Devices over Security Concerns
E-Financial1 day agoFidelity Bank Clears the Air: MD Not Linked to Woobs Case
Telecom2 days agoMTN Nigeria Launches “Mega Billion Promo” to Reward Customer Loyalty and Drive Financial Inclusion
Telecom2 days agoMTN Nigeria Donates Medical, Digital Equipment to Lagos Primary Healthcare Centre
General News1 day agoSEC Advocates for Advanced Financial Inclusion by 2030