The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) lawsuit brought by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal High Court in Abuja has been ordered to hear on May 8th.
Justice Omotosho set the date after the parties’ written arguments were accepted and rejected.
Following an increase in the service costs for DStv and GOtv, the court had previously restrained the Commission from pursuing “any administrative steps” against the plaintiff.
The restraining order was a response to a formal request made by MultiChoice to the court to protect itself from the FCCPC’s planned sanction for the price increases of DStv and GOtv.
The court granted the plaintiff’s request for an extension of time during the proceeding to regularize its procedures, and it also granted her request to renounce its interlocutory injunction application, which had already been overturned.
Through its lead counsel, MultiChoice asserted that the key issue is “whether the defendant has the right to control the price at which the plaintiff offers its services to the public.”
READ MORE: Zenith Bank Posts N1tn Profit After Tax For FY 2024.
The senior attorney argued that the Act establishing the FCCPC did not give the Commission the authority to regulate prices or stop anyone, including the plaintiff, from raising its prices, while acknowledging the Commission’s regulatory authority.
Onigbanjo added that the Tribunal had previously litigated whether the defendant had any authority to control the price of goods and services in the nation, aside from the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s President.
The attorney for the plaintiff also argued that even the president, who has the authority to regulate prices, maintains that “his government does not believe in price control” but that prices are influenced by market forces of demands and supplies.
The plaintiff added that if the FCCPC lacks authority to regulate prices, where does he have authority to stop the plaintiff from raising prices?
After that, MultiChoice charged the Commission with discrimination, claiming that no one else raised a complaint about the Commission’s continued increase in prices in line with the country’s economic conditions and inflation, claiming only the plaintiff.
Therefore, he demanded that the court grant the defendants’ requests for all remedies.
Lead counsel for the defendant, Professor Joe Agbugu, SAN, urged the court to first address the cause of action, which is the increase in the cost of DStv and GOtv, while adopting his counteraffidavit in opposition to the lawsuit.
Agbugu made it known that the Commission had written to the plaintiff on February 25th following its price increase announcement effective March 1, 2025.
The senior attorney claimed that it was inappropriate and suggested March 6 because MultiChoice was scheduled to appear before the Commission on February 27. Then, we said, “They should hold on with the price increase in the interim.”
Agbugu added that, as at the time the action commenced, there was no issue with price regulation or fixing.
Additionally, he claimed that the FCCPC had the authority to “regulate” excessive pricing and to “regulate” consumer-transfers and the passing of costs.
Agbugu claimed that the plaintiff “occurs a dominant position in television and entertainment,” not because of price regulation, but because the Commission has the authority to look into prices that are deemed to be abusive and abusive.
They fled to be investigated over their planned action, according to the Commission, who is not going to advise you to use price A or B but instead decides that the price is exploitative.
The Commission’s job is to protect the consumer, not to fix prices; the issue is whether the price is exorbitant.
The defendant’s attorney responded to the claim of discrimination by arguing that “abuse of dominant position qualified them to be targeted for exorbitant pricing.”
Agbugu then demanded that the lawsuit be dismissed and dismissed because it violated the Commission’s main goal, which is to protect consumers.
He further stated that the plaintiff’s lawsuit should be dropped and that an investigation should be conducted there.
Source: Channels TV
Leave a Reply