On Thursday, the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, fixed May 8 for judgment in a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.
MultiChoice is seeking to stop the FCCPC from sanctioning it over its recent increase in the DStv and GOtv subscriptions.
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after counsel for MultiChoice, Moyosore Onigbanjo, and FCCPC’s lawyer, J.E.O. Abugu, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.
Mr Omotosho had, on March 12, restrained FCCPC from sanctioning the pay-TV company until the hearing and determination of the substance suit.
The judge gave the order after an ex parte motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025 and moved by Mr Onigbanjo to the effect.
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 February 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 Mr 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.
Lastly, it sought 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.
(NAN)
