- The restraining order issued by Justice James Omotosho followed an ex-parte motion moved by Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, counsel to MultiChoice
Moves by Federal Government to stop MultiChoice Nigeria Limited from raising its subscription fees for DStv and GOtv have failed.
The bid hit a stumbling block after a Federal High Court in Abuja ruled against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
The court on Wednesday stopped the commission from sanctioning MultiChoice over its recent increase of the fees for its services.
The restraining order issued by Justice James Omotosho followed an ex-parte motion moved by Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, counsel to MultiChoice.
Justice Omotosho, in the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025, ordered FCCPC not to take “any administrative steps” against the pay-Tv company.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd to provide explanations regarding the March 1 price review of its packages.
The commission directed the company’s chief executive officer to appear for an investigative hearing on Feb. 27, raising concerns over frequent price hikes, potential market dominance abuse and anti-competitive practices within the pay-TV industry.
The FCCPC also issued a stern warning, stating that failure to justify the price adjustment or comply with fair market principles would lead to regulatory sanctions.
However, in the ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s legal team led by Onigbanjo, the company sought an order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC and its officers from carrying out the threat against it, as communicated via a letter dated March 3, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
It also sought an order restraining the commission and its officers from issuing any further directive or taking any steps capable of disrupting its business activities, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
“An order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC, its agents, servants, or privies from sanctioning or penalising MultiChoice (the applicant) in any manner whatsoever in relation to its price increase pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.”
Onibanjo, in his argument, averred that Nigeria operates a free-market economy where prices of goods and services are not regulated.
He argued that the FCCPC Act and other enabling laws do not grant the commission the authority to regulate prices or require businesses to seek approval before adjusting the cost of their services.
He added that MultiChoice had communicated its intention to increase prices via a letter dated Feb 21.
He said that the FCCPC, however, in a letter dated Feb. 27, ordered the pay-TV company to suspend its planned price increment.
The lawyer said following the development, the company filed a suit on March 3, challenging, among other things, the FCCPC’s power to regulate prices or suspend its price adjustment.
He said MultiChoice, after filing the suit, proceeded with the planned price increase.
He said despite the pending suit, the FCCPC threatened to prosecute MultiChoice via a letter dated March 3 if it failed to provide reasonable justification for disregarding the directive to suspend the price increment.
In an affidavit deposed to by Gozie Onumonu, Head of Regulatory Affairs and Government Relations at MultiChoice, the company argued that its subscription rates in Nigeria are the lowest among all the countries where it operates.
“For instance, the cost of the Premium package in Nigeria is equivalent to $29.81, while the same package costs $85.11 in Kenya,” Onumonu said.
The officer maintained that MultiChoice had the legal right to operate its business, including adjusting its prices when necessary.
When the matter was called on Wednesday, Onigbanjo moved the motion, praying the court to grant their reliefs.
The judge, after hearing the lawyer’s application, restrained the FCCPC from taking any “administrative steps” against MultiChoice pending the determination of the case.
The judge equally ordered an accelerated hearing on the matter and adjourned the matter until March 27 for hearing
Discussion about this post