MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) have approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja, seeking its intervention regarding the Pay TV’s DStv and GOtv price hikes in Nigeria. This is according to the notices of appeal and cross-appeal filed by the pay-TV company and the FCCPC they are challenging aspects of the subsisting judgment of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, which pertains to their respective roles as a multinational company and regulatory authority. It will be recalled that on May 8, 2025, that the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Omotosho, had dismissed MultiChoice Nigeria Limited’s suit seeking the upholding of its DStv and GOtv price increases in Nigeria. MultiChoice’s lawyer, Moyosore J. Onigbanjo (SAN), had argued that the FCCPC lacks statutory powers to stop MultiChoice from fixing its prices because Nigeria operates a free-market economy where the prices of goods and services are not regulated.
However, FCCPC’s counsel, Prof. Joe Agbugu (SAN), emphasized that the Commission is authorized by law to regulate alleged abuses of dominant market positions, especially when such abuses affect Nigerian consumers.
Justice Omotosho eventually passed the judgment, saying that the pay TV’s suit amounted to an “abuse of court process.” In determining that the MultiChoice suit was an “abuse of court process,” Omotosho observed that there is a pending suit by one lawyer, Festus Onifade, against the pay-TV company before another court division of the same coordinate jurisdiction, adding that the two suits are similar. The judge held that MultiChoice’s legal team was aware of the pending suit filed by Barrister Festus Onifade before filing the instant suit. However, Omotosho agreed that Nigeria operates a free market economy, where only the President of Nigeria has the exclusive power to regulate prices and to set up a price control board against any defaulting foreign companies or regulated goods and services.
He added that the FCCPC only has an advisory role on the issue of price fixing and can only regulate prices if the President of Nigeria delegates such powers to the Commission via an “instrument.” 
Omotosho also held that from the facts before the court, investigation had yet to begin before the FCCPC issued the suspension directive to MultiChoice, faulting the Commission for having “acted beyond its power.”
Disagreeing with part of Omotosho’s judgment regarding “abuse of court process,” MultiChoice’s lawyer, Onigbanjo, raised three grounds of appeal, dated May 19, 2025: that MultiChoice’s Suit is not an Abuse of Process; Omotosho’s decision on his case being an “abuse of court process” was allegedly “made in breach of appellant’s Constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing.” and submitted that the FCCPC never raised any issue of abuse of court process between the instant suit and Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 between “Festus Sanmi Onifade vs. MultiChoice Nigeria Limited & Another.” The issues in the instant Suit and Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 between Festus Sanmi Onifade vs. MultiChoice Nigeria Limited & Anor, are different. The parties in both suits are also different,” the senior lawyer maintained. He added that MultiChoice and FCCPC were co-defendants in the suit filed by Onifade, and that the pay TV could therefore not be accused of filing its suit in abuse of process. Judge Raised Another Court Matter On Its Own. The pay-TV company further argued that the trial judge allegedly “misdirected himself” when he leveraged on another pending case in describing its case as an “abuse of court process.” The issue of abuse of court process between the instant Suit and Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 between Festus Sanmi Onifade vs. MultiChoice Nigeria Limited & Anor was raised suo moto (on his own) by the learned trial judge without any invitation to the parties to address the court on the matter,” Onigbanjo argued. MultiChoice Case Ought Not to be Dismissed. Lastly, the senior lawyer contended that the learned trial Judge “erred in law” when he dismissed the Appellant’s suit in his judgment. The lawyer submitted that the position of the law is that when a challenge of jurisdiction is successful, the proper order for the court to make is an order striking out the suit, not an order of dismissal. In law, striking out a case means that the case can be refiled later by a party, but when it is dismissed, it means the case cannot be brought back to court. The senior lawyer urged the Appeal Court to “allow the appeal and set aside the part of the judgment of the lower court which held that MultiChoice’s suit was an abuse of process.” He also asked the Appeal Court to “affirm that part of the judgment of the lower court where it upheld on the merits the reliefs sought by the Appellant, regarding price fixing.” 
FCCPC legal team, led by Prof. Joseph Abugu, SAN, filed eight grounds of appeal dated June 13, 2025: FCCPC has power to issue interim directives against price hikes. The FCCPC’s senior lawyer argued that it was an error for the trial judge to hold that whilst the Commission has powers to investigate the business practices of the pay-TV, it lacks powers to issue interim directives aimed at stopping a proposed price hike until the investigation is completed. FCCPC Did Not Engage in Price Fixing Against MultiChoice. According to Abugu, the Commission had clearly stated in its Counter Affidavit and written address that it “does not have the power to and has not engaged in price fixing.”  He argued that regulating alleged unscrupulous business practices and exploitative pricing mechanisms of customers pursuant to relevant laws “is distinct from price fixing which is regulated by Section 88 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act.” 
The Commission maintained that it is empowered under Section 17(s) of the FCCPA to ensure that consumers’ interests receive due consideration at appropriate fora and provide redress to “obnoxious practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers by firms, trade associations or individuals,” and has therefore acted within its powers. The senior lawyer stressed that the directive against MultiChoice was necessary to protect the interests of the customers, especially Mr. Festus Onifade, who filed a complaint before the Commission urging the FCCPC to intervene in the interest of the public who subscribe to the services of the pay TV. MultiChoice’s Right In a Free Market Is Not Absolute. The Commission urged the Appeal Court to hold that the pay-TV’s rights in a free market are not absolute but only subsist subject to the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, which is set out to regulate the actions and conduct of businesses within the free market economy.
The FCCPC maintained that the television and broadcast industry, in which the pay TV is a participant in, is also a regulated sector in Nigeria under the provisions of the National Broadcasting Commission Act and other relevant laws. FCCPC Has Every Right to Interfere In MultiChoice’s Planned Price Hike. The Commission maintained that it has every business interfering in the planned price increase of MultiChoice because of its statutory duty to investigate and prohibit unscrupulous business practices and exploitation of consumers.“The Court erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice, when it relied on and ascribed an erroneous, opposite and contrary interpretation to Exhibit MOJ05 that the FCCPC has no power to regulate prices in a free market economy,” the Commission added. FCCPC Provided Evidence That MultiChoice Was Exploiting Nigerians as a Dominant Player The FCCPC further argued that the court below erred in law and contradicted itself when at page 60 of the judgment, it held that the FCCPC “failed to show any proof of the MultiChoice being in a dominant market position or that its prices were excessive or exploitative,” and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The senior lawyer argued that the price increase charts presented by the FCCPC in its Counter Affidavit to the Originating Summons “clearly proved a trend of capricious, arbitrary and incessant exorbitant price increases by the pay TV, which statement of facts were not rebutted.” FCCPC Denies.
The Commission disagreed with the trial court’s observation that other companies in the TV sector were not similarly targeted by the FCCPC. The Commission argued that the application before the court did not require an investigation into whether or not there are other companies in Nigeria acting in breach of the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018. The FCCPC urged the court to “affirm MultiChoice’s case as an abuse of court process while upholding the Commission’s powers to issue interim directives against proposed price hike and investigate consumer complaints.“ No date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the matter.