The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday dismissed a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited seeking judicial backing for its controversial price hikes on DStv and GOtv subscriptions.
Presiding Judge, Justice James Omotosho, described the action as an “abuse of court process”, citing an already pending case on the same issue.
The judgment marks a pivotal moment in the regulatory standoff between MultiChoice and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), which had challenged the company’s decision to increase subscription rates without adequate justification.
MultiChoice had filed the suit under case number FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025, seeking to bar the FCCPC from taking any punitive actions related to the price increase announced in February.
Abuse of Court Process and Legal Missteps
Justice Omotosho ruled that MultiChoice was fully aware of an earlier, similar case filed by one Festus Onifade, which was already pending in another division of the court.
The judge stated that the company’s decision to initiate a new suit on the same matter constituted legal duplication and procedural manipulation.
“This is an abuse of the court process,” Omotosho declared. “The plaintiff in this instant suit could have ventilated his grievance before the previous pending suit.”
READ ALSO: Group slams MultiChoice over discriminatory pricing
Though the FCCPC raised the issue of pre-action notice, Omotosho held that the commission had waived that ground by failing to bring it up during the substantive hearing, allowing the court to address the core arguments in the case.
Limits of FCCPC Powers and the Free Market Argument
While affirming Nigeria’s status as a free-market economy, Justice Omotosho stated unequivocally that the FCCPC had overreached its powers by attempting to halt MultiChoice’s price increases without first conducting a formal investigation. He explained that only the President of Nigeria, through a duly constituted price control board, holds the legal authority to regulate or freeze prices of goods and services.
“FCCPC is not vested with the power to suspend the price hike of an entity before conducting an investigation,” the judge ruled.
“Only the President has the statutory authority to regulate prices and this must be exercised across an entire industry, not selectively.”
Although the FCCPC has broad powers to regulate competition, consumer protection, and monopolistic behavior, it lacks direct authority to impose price controls unless delegated such powers via presidential instrument, Omotosho clarified.
He further criticized what he described as selective enforcement, stating that the Commission had targeted MultiChoice while ignoring similar pricing behavior from other pay-TV providers and streaming platforms like YouTube.
“Prices cannot be regulated in a free market economy. Attempt to fix prices will only scare investors away,” he warned.
Background: Controversy Over Subscription Hikes
MultiChoice had earlier informed its customers that new subscription rates for its services would take effect on March 1, 2025. Key adjustments included:
DStv Compact: ₦15,700 to ₦19,000 (25% increase)
DStv Compact Plus: ₦25,000 to ₦30,000 (20% increase)
DStv Premium: ₦37,000 to ₦44,500 (20% increase)
GOtv Supa Plus: ₦15,700 to ₦16,800
These increases followed a similar hike in May 2024 and were attributed by MultiChoice to inflation, rising operational costs, and currency volatility.
The FCCPC had summoned the company to appear before its investigative panel in February 2025, citing concerns over price gouging, abuse of market dominance, and anti-competitive behavior.
A letter dated March 3 warned MultiChoice of possible sanctions if it failed to provide a satisfactory justification for its pricing strategy.
Legal Arguments from Both Sides
MultiChoice’s legal counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Moyosore Onigbanjo, argued that the FCCPC was overstepping its mandate in a free-market economy. He said the company was being unfairly singled out, especially since other firms had implemented similar increases without facing regulatory threats.
In response, the FCCPC’s counsel, Professor Joe Agbugu (SAN), maintained that the commission was not attempting to regulate prices, but rather to assess whether MultiChoice’s dominant market position was being exploited to the detriment of Nigerian consumers.
Despite the substantive points raised by both parties, Justice Omotosho ultimately ruled that the suit itself was procedurally flawed.
“The suit is hereby dismissed for being an abuse of court process,” he concluded.