The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday restrained the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from taking any administrative steps against MultiChoice Nigeria Limited following its recent upward adjustments of DStv and GOtv subscription prices
Justice James Omotosho issued the order in an ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s lawyer, Moyosore Onibanjo, against the FCCPC, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025.
The Commission had directed the MultiChoice’s Chief Executive Officer, John Ugbe, 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 warned the company’s management that failure to justify the price adjustment or comply with fair market principles would lead to regulatory sanctions.
During the hearing of 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 prosecution of MultiChoice, as communicated via a letter dated March 3, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
MultiChoice also prayed the court for: “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 operated a free-market economy where prices of goods and services are not regulated, arguing 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.
Onibanjo told the court that MultiChoice had communicated its intention to increase prices via a letter dated February 21, 2025, adding, however, that the FCCPC, in a letter dated February 27, 2025, directs the pay-TV company to suspend its planned price increment.
Consequently, the lawyer 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, adding that “the applicant, after filing the suit, proceeded with the planned price increase.”
He further 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, the company maintained that its subscription rates in Nigeria were the lowest among all the countries where it operates.
For instance, MultiChoice stated that the cost of the Premium package in Nigeria was equivalent to $29.81, while the same package costs $85.11 in Kenya to justify its recent DStv and GOtv subscription price increases.
Onibanjo told the court that MultiChoice had the legal right to operate its business, including adjusting its prices when necessary, adding 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, the lawyer referred to 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 plaintiff’s counsel, Justice Omotosho restrained the FCCPC from taking any “administrative steps” against MultiChoice pending the determination of the suit.
The judge also ordered an accelerated hearing on the matter and fixed March 27, 2025, for the hearing.
