A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), affirming the pay-TV operator’s right to raise its DStv and GOtv subscription rates.
Justice James Omotosho delivered the verdict on Thursday, declaring the case an abuse of court process, as similar proceedings were already ongoing in another court.
On February 24, MultiChoice had announced a price increase for its packages effective March 1 — a move that triggered public backlash and prompted the FCCPC to summon the company’s CEO for a hearing. The Commission also directed MultiChoice to halt the price hike pending its investigation.
Rather than comply, MultiChoice rescheduled the hearing to March 6 and proceeded with the price adjustment, while simultaneously filing a lawsuit on March 3. The court initially granted an interim order on March 12 restraining the FCCPC from taking any administrative steps against the company.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho clarified that although the FCCPC has the legal power to investigate business practices, it cannot suspend or fix prices unless such authority is expressly delegated by the President and published through an official gazette. No such delegation was presented in this case.
“The power to fix prices belongs solely to the President. Any such action taken without proper delegation is a nullity,” Omotosho said, emphasizing that Nigeria operates a free-market economy.
He also ruled that FCCPC’s demand for MultiChoice to suspend its price hike violated the company’s right to a fair hearing and was selectively targeted. The judge further rejected the Commission’s claim that MultiChoice held a dominant position in the pay-TV market, stating that its services are non-essential and discretionary.
“Regulators must be cautious,” Omotosho warned, “as arbitrary price control efforts can discourage investment and undermine the economy.”
The judgment effectively affirms MultiChoice’s right to set its prices, while cautioning regulators to act within the bounds of their legal mandate.
