The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled May 8 for a ruling in the case initiated by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
Naija News reports that Justice James Omotosho set the date after attorneys representing both sides presented and debated their written submissions regarding the case.
Previously, the court had prohibited the Commission from taking “any administrative actions” against the plaintiff following an increase in the service fees of two of its offerings: DStv and GOtv.
This injunction was issued in response to a formal request from MultiChoice seeking the court’s intervention against anticipated penalties from the FCCPC due to the price hike of DStv and GOtv.
During the proceedings, the court approved the Commission’s request for additional time to organize its processes and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw its application for an interim injunction, which had become irrelevant due to changing circumstances.
In presenting its argument, MultiChoice, led by its attorney Onigbanjo, contended that the central issue is “whether the defendant possesses the right to dictate the pricing at which the plaintiff provides its services to the public.”
While recognizing the Commission’s regulatory authority, the senior attorney maintained that the legislation establishing the FCCPC did not grant it the authority to regulate prices or prevent any entity, including the plaintiff, from raising its prices.
Moreover, Onigbanjo pointed out that the question of whether the defendant can control pricing has previously been contested between the two parties, noting that the Tribunal had determined that the Commission does not have the authority to regulate the prices of goods and services in the country, except by 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 market forces of demand and supply determine prices.
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 relief sought in the suit.
While adopting his counter affidavit in opposition to the suit, lead counsel for the defendant, Professor Joe Agbugu, SAN, urged the court to first address the cause of action, which is the issue of the increase in the price of DStv and GOtv.
Agbugu disclosed that the Commission, on February 25, wrote the plaintiff after it announced a 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.
He added 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 abusive 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 discrimination claim, the 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.”
The post Price Hike: Court Fixes New Date To Rule In MultiChoice, FCCPC Dispute appeared first on Naija News.