By National Record, with Agency Report
THE FEDERAL High Court in Abuja on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited seeking to prevent the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from imposing sanctions over its recent subscription price increase.
Justice James Omotosho ruled that the suit constituted an abuse of court process, as a similar case involving the same parties was already pending before the court.
The earlier suit, filed by lawyer Festus Onifade, challenges MultiChoice’s right to raise subscription fees, alleging violations of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), 2018.
Background of the Case
MultiChoice, operator of DStv and GOtv, recently increased subscription rates despite an ongoing investigation by the FCCPC.
The commission had summoned the company’s CEO to justify the hike, citing concerns over frequent price adjustments, potential market dominance abuse, and anti-competitive practices.
On March 12, Justice Omotosho had temporarily restrained the FCCPC from sanctioning MultiChoice pending the determination of the substantive suit.
However, in Thursday’s ruling, the judge held that MultiChoice should have raised its grievances in the existing case rather than filing a separate lawsuit.
Court’s Decision
Justice Omotosho stated that allowing the new suit to proceed risked conflicting judgments and unnecessary legal duplication.
“Filing this instant suit, despite the pending case involving the same parties, is an abuse of court process,” he declared.
The judge further ruled that under Section 88 of the FCCPA, only the President has the authority to regulate prices in essential sectors, not the FCCPC.
He emphasized that Nigeria operates a free-market economy, where private companies have the liberty to set prices for non-essential services like pay-TV.
Implications
The dismissal means MultiChoice must now defend its pricing decisions in the earlier suit filed by Onifade. The FCCPC, meanwhile, retains its regulatory oversight but cannot directly interfere with MultiChoice’s pricing under current legal interpretations.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between regulatory bodies and private enterprises over consumer protection and market freedom in Nigeria.
