Battle for the Remote: MultiChoice, FCCPC Clash in Court Over Subscription Rates

MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) have approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja regarding the contentious DStv and GOtv price increases.

This follows their individual notices of appeal and cross-appeal challenging portions of the Federal High Court ruling delivered by Justice James Omotosho.

On May 8, 2025, the High Court dismissed MultiChoice’s suit seeking to uphold its subscription rate hikes. The judge described the suit as an abuse of court process, citing an existing suit filed by Barrister Festus Onifade on similar grounds.

While the court affirmed that Nigeria operates a free-market economy, it noted only the President holds powers to control prices and that the FCCPC requires a formal instrument of delegation to regulate prices.

The court also faulted the FCCPC for issuing a price suspension directive without completing its investigation, ruling that the Commission had overstepped its authority.

MultiChoice, through its lawyer Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), argued that the trial court infringed on its right to a fair hearing and misapplied the law regarding abuse of process, asserting the parties and issues in the Onifade case differed.

Read Also:

• MultiChoice Nigeria Announces Subscription Price Increases
• MultiChoice Swings to $108M Profit Despite Subscriber Dip

MultiChoice insists its case should have been struck out—not dismissed—and seeks to overturn this aspect while affirming the ruling on price regulation.

On its part, the FCCPC, led by Prof. Joseph Abugu (SAN), raised eight grounds of appeal, defending its powers to issue interim directives and investigate consumer exploitation under existing laws.

The Commission maintains that regulating exploitative pricing differs from price fixing and that it acted within its mandate. It added that MultiChoice’s market dominance and repeated price hikes warranted regulatory intervention.

A hearing date is yet to be fixed by the Appeal Court.