The Federal High Court in Abuja plans to rule on May 8 on a ruling initiated by Multichoice Nigeria’s restricted ruling against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCP).
Naija News Report justice James Omotosho Date was set after the attorney representing both parties and a debate submitted in writing was held on the case.
Previously, the court had banned the committee from taking “any administrative lawsuit” against the plaintiffs after the service fees for its two sales increased: DSTV and GOTV.
The injunction was issued against a formal request for a multi-quarter request seeking court interventions against the FCCPC as a result of rising prices DSTV and gotv.
During the proceedings, the court approved the committee’s request for additional time to organize its proceedings and allowed the plaintiff to withdraw his application for an interim injunction that was irrelevant due to changes in circumstances.
When making its argument, Multichoice, led by attorney Onigbanjo, argued that the central question was “whether the defendant has the right to decide the pricing of the plaintiff’s services to the public.”
In recognizing the board’s regulatory bodies, senior lawyers insisted that the legislation to establish the FCCPC did not grant it the power to regulate prices or prevent any entity, including the plaintiff, from raising prices.
Furthermore, Onigbanjo pointed out that the question of whether the defendant could control pricing was previously a competition between the two parties, noting that the court had determined that the commission had no authority to regulate the prices of goods and services in the country, except for the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Plaintiff’s lawyers also stipulate that even the president who regulates prices maintains “His government does not believe in price control” But the market power of demand and supply determines the price.
In addition, the plaintiff also pointed out that if the FCCPC does not have the power to control the price, “he has the power to prevent the plaintiff from rising.
Multichoice then accused the Discrimination Committee, noting that all businesses in the country were in line with economic conditions and inflation, without the committee raising eyebrows, except for the plaintiff.
He therefore urged the court to grant all relief sought in the lawsuit.
In opposing the lawsuit, the defendant’s chief attorney, Professor Joe Agbugu, urged the court to resolve the cause of the lawsuit first, which is a matter of rising prices for DSTV and GOTV.
Agbugu revealed that the committee wrote the plaintiff after announcing a price increase effective from March 1, 2025 on February 25.
According to the senior lawyer, the call-up will appear in court on February 27.“They wrote that it was not convenient and proposed on March 6. Then we said that during the transition period, they should stick to the price increase.”
Agbugu further pointed out that “At the beginning of the action, there is no issue with price regulations or fixed issues.”
Furthermore, he claimed that the regulations that established the FCCPC gave it the power to “check overpriced pricing” and the right to “regulate the abuse of major status in the market” because it is related to price and passing costs to consumers.
“Plaintiffs dominate television and entertainment,Agbugu claimed.
He added that the case before the court was not the price statute, but the committee’s power to investigate prices deemed to be exploited and violated dominance.
“The committee is not about telling you to use price A or B, but about making sure the price is exploitative.” He said.
“They ran away and investigated their planned actions.
“Our action is not about pricing; the question is whether the price is too high…the commission’s mission is to protect consumers.”
Responding to the discrimination claim, the defendant’s lawyer believes that “Abuse of dominance makes them qualify for the price they are selected. ”
Agbugu then urged the court to remove the lawsuit and dismiss the lawsuit because it attacked the main task of protecting consumers.
“The lawsuit should be dismissed and the plaintiff returns to us for investigation,” He added.
In response, Judge Omotosho announced: “The verdict is reserved for May 8.”
