Court affirms MultiChoice’s right to raise subscription rates following lawsuit against FCCPC

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled in favour of MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, affirming the company’s decision to increase subscription fees for its DStv and GOtv services and stating that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) acted beyond its powers in attempting to halt the hike. 

Delivering judgment on Thursday, Justice James Omotoso stated that the FCCPC does not possess the legal authority to fix or suspend prices unless it has received explicit delegation from the President through a gazetted order—something that was not presented before the court.

The decision follows a legal dispute triggered by MultiChoice’s February 24 announcement of new subscription rates, which took effect from March 1. The increase, coming less than a year after a previous hike, sparked public outcry and prompted the FCCPC to summon MultiChoice’s CEO for a hearing scheduled for February 27. MultiChoice declined the date, proposing March 6 instead. In the meantime, the FCCPC instructed the company to pause the price hike pending its investigation. However, MultiChoice proceeded with the changes and filed a lawsuit against the commission on March 3.

Justice Omotoso had earlier granted an ex parte order on March 12 restraining the FCCPC from taking any administrative action against the company during the litigation. In his ruling, he emphasized that Nigeria operates a free-market economy, and service providers like MultiChoice have the right to set prices. He also criticized the FCCPC’s directive to suspend the price increase as a violation of the company’s right to a fair hearing and described the commission’s claim of MultiChoice’s dominance in the market as baseless.

“The power to fix prices is exclusively that of the President. Any decision taken without such delegation is a nullity,” the judge stated, warning that attempts by regulatory bodies to control prices without proper legal backing could deter investment and harm the economy. He further asserted that services offered by MultiChoice are non-essential and discretionary, and consumers are free to accept or reject them.

Justice Omotoso also noted that similar proceedings were already pending in another court, calling MultiChoice’s suit an abuse of court process and suggesting that the company should have pursued its claims through the ongoing case. Nonetheless, the judgment marks a significant legal win for the pay-TV operator and clarifies the limits of FCCPC’s regulatory reach in price matters.