Court Dismisses MultiChoice Suit Over DStv, GOtv Price Hikes, Faults FCCPC’s Overreach

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, the operator of DStv and GOtv, challenging regulatory opposition to its recent subscription price hikes. Justice James Omotosho, who delivered the ruling on Thursday, held that the company’s case amounted to an abuse of court process, as it was filed despite a similar suit already pending before the court.

The court’s ruling stems from MultiChoice’s response to growing regulatory pressure and consumer backlash following the company’s announcement of a price increase effective March 1, 2025. The hike in subscription fees sparked widespread criticism and prompted the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to summon the pay-TV provider and issue directives to halt the new prices pending further investigation.

Katsina Reps Dump PDP For APC As Gov. Otti Demands Arrest Of LP Factional Leader

However, in his judgment, Justice Omotosho clarified that the FCCPC overstepped its statutory authority by attempting to reverse the price hike without first conducting a full and proper investigation. The court acknowledged that while the FCCPC has the legal mandate to probe anti-competitive behavior and issues of market dominance, it cannot arbitrarily suspend or reverse commercial pricing decisions of private firms without due process.

“Only the President of Nigeria, under existing laws, holds the authority to regulate or fix prices,” the judge explained. “Even then, such regulation must apply uniformly to an entire industry, not selectively to a single operator such as MultiChoice.”

Despite this affirmation of free-market principles, the court ultimately dismissed MultiChoice’s suit on procedural grounds. Justice Omotosho emphasized that the company should have addressed its concerns in the already pending case filed by consumer rights advocate, Festus Onifade, instead of initiating a separate, parallel suit.

“Filing a new suit while fully aware of an existing, similar one constitutes an abuse of the court process,” the judge stated. “MultiChoice’s grievances could and should have been addressed within the framework of the earlier litigation.”

The court’s verdict serves as a reminder to both private enterprises and regulators about the necessity of following established legal procedures. While reaffirming that Nigeria operates a free-market economy, the judgment underscored that regulatory actions must be backed by lawful authority and not circumvent proper investigative steps.

Justice Omotosho also warned that unilateral intervention by regulatory bodies without adhering to due process risks damaging investor confidence, especially in sensitive sectors like telecommunications and media, where pricing models directly impact millions of consumers.

The dispute between MultiChoice and the FCCPC dates back to the company’s controversial decision to raise prices amidst ongoing economic challenges and inflationary pressure in Nigeria. The move was met with sharp criticism from customers and attracted the attention of regulatory bodies, including the FCCPC, which claimed the increase might exploit Nigerian consumers and breach competition standards.

In response, MultiChoice sought protection from what it viewed as regulatory overreach, arguing that its price adjustment was lawful and in line with Nigeria’s free-market system. The company had hoped the court would restrain the FCCPC from enforcing sanctions or interfering with its pricing structure.

While the court agreed with MultiChoice on its economic reasoning, it ruled against the company on legal grounds, thereby striking out the case.

Legal experts say the ruling clarifies several key issues: First, that businesses retain the right to adjust prices in response to market conditions; second, that regulatory agencies must adhere to their legal boundaries; and third, that litigants must not undermine judicial processes by pursuing redundant or duplicative lawsuits.

Although the case was dismissed, MultiChoice may still benefit from the court’s explicit rejection of arbitrary regulatory interference. It sends a strong message to the FCCPC that any future enforcement against businesses must be predicated on completed investigations and legal compliance, not administrative directives.

Moving forward, the ruling is likely to influence how both companies and regulators navigate conflicts over pricing and competition. Stakeholders are now calling for clearer guidelines and improved communication between regulators and industry players to avoid future conflicts.

The FCCPC, on its part, has not publicly responded to the ruling at the time of this report. However, the judgment is expected to shape future regulatory actions, especially concerning sectors where consumer protection and market freedom must be carefully balanced.

As it stands, MultiChoice remains free to implement its new pricing structure, though it may still need to address the concerns raised in the pending suit initiated by Festus Onifade.