Court Dismisses MultiChoice Suit Against FCCPC, Affirms Limits on Price Regulation

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria, the parent company of DStv and GOtv, challenging the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission’s (FCCPC) intervention over its recent subscription price hike.

Delivering judgment, Justice James Omotoso ruled that the suit amounted to an abuse of court process, noting that similar proceedings were already ongoing in another jurisdiction. He said MultiChoice ought to have presented its case in that existing forum rather than initiating fresh litigation.

While affirming the FCCPC’s investigative powers under its establishing Act, the court clarified that the Commission has no legal authority to fix or suspend prices unless such powers are expressly delegated by the President through a gazetted instrument — which was not presented in this case.

“The power to fix prices is exclusively that of the President. Any decision taken without such delegation is a nullity,” Justice Omotoso declared.

The court further emphasized that Nigeria operates a free market economy, meaning service providers such as MultiChoice have the right to determine their pricing structures. Consumers, the court added, also retain the freedom to accept or reject such services.

In a strong rebuke of the FCCPC’s actions, the judge ruled that the Commission’s order directing MultiChoice to suspend its March 1 subscription increase violated the company’s right to fair hearing and appeared to selectively target the pay-TV provider.

“The use of services like those provided by the plaintiff is discretionary and not essential. Nigeria can do without it,” Omotoso said, adding that undue regulatory interference could discourage foreign investment and undermine economic confidence.

The court concluded that while the FCCPC has the authority to investigate anti-competitive conduct, it cannot impose price controls without legal backing.

MultiChoice had raised its subscription rates by up to 25%, citing inflation and increased operational costs. The move sparked public backlash and prompted the FCCPC to intervene, threatening sanctions — which led to the legal standoff.

With this ruling, the court has drawn a clear line between regulatory oversight and market control, affirming the principle of pricing autonomy in a liberalized economy.