The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday restrained the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from taking “any administrative steps” against MultiChoice Nigeria Limited following its DStv and GOtv price increases.
Justice James Omotosho issued the order in an ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s lawyer, Moyosore J. Onibanjo (SAN), against the FCCPC, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025.
Grow your business with us
Recall that the FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria to provide explanations regarding the price review.
The Commission had directed the company’s Chief Executive Officer to appear for an investigative hearing on February 27, 2025, 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.
In the ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s legal team, led by Onibanjo, the pay-TV company sought an order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC and its officers from carrying out the threatened prosecution of MultiChoice, as communicated via a letter dated March 3, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
“An order restraining the FCCPC and its officers from issuing any further directive or taking any steps capable of disrupting the business activities of MultiChoice 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 penalizing 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.”
Citing the grounds for the application, Onibanjo submitted that Nigeria operates a free-market economy where prices of goods and services are not regulated.
He argued that the FCCPC Act and other enabling laws do not grant the Commission the authority to regulate prices or require businesses to seek approval before adjusting the cost of their services.
He added that MultiChoice had communicated its intention to increase prices via a letter dated February 21, 2025.
He added, however, that the FCCPC, in a letter dated February 27, 2025, ordered the pay-TV company to suspend its planned price increment.
Following this, he stressed that MultiChoice filed a suit on March 3, 2025, challenging, among other things, the FCCPC’s power to regulate prices or suspend its price adjustment.
“The applicant, after filing the suit, proceeded with the planned price increase,” Onibanjo stated.
The senior lawyer told the court that despite the pending suit, the FCCPC threatened to prosecute MultiChoice via a letter dated March 3, 2025, if it failed to provide reasonable justification for disregarding the directive to suspend the price increment.
In an affidavit deposed by Gozie Onumonu, Head of Regulatory Affairs and Government Relations at MultiChoice, and seen by Nairametrics, the company argued that its subscription rates in Nigeria are the lowest among all the countries where it operates.
“For instance, the cost of the Premium package in Nigeria is equivalent to $29.81, while the same package costs $85.11 in Kenya,” the affidavit stated.
The senior lawyer maintained that MultiChoice has the legal right to operate its business, including adjusting its prices when necessary.
Onibanjo also informed the court that despite the pending case, the FCCPC issued a public statement on March 5, 2025, concerning the subject matter, necessitating a restraining order.
At the hearing on Wednesday, Onibanjo referenced his ex parte motion and urged the court to consider a further affidavit showing that the FCCPC had already taken steps despite the ongoing litigation.
After hearing the lawyer’s oral application, Justice Omotosho restrained the FCCPC from taking any “administrative steps” against MultiChoice pending the determination of the case.
The judge also ordered an accelerated hearing on the matter and fixed March 27, 2025, for the hearing.