Price Hike: Court Fixes May 8 For Judgment In MultiChoice, FCCPC Dispute
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 its lead counsel, Onigbanjo 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, lead counsel for the defendant, Professor Joe Agbugu, SAN, 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.”
