At the heart of this issue is whether a private company operating in a free market should be restrained by a regulatory agency from adjusting its prices, and to what extent.

Both parties are appealing parts of a judgement delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, which essentially restricted the FCCPC’s authority over MultiChoice’s pricing decisions while also accusing the pay-TV giant of abusing court processes.

For MultiChoice, the priority is to overturn the label of “abuse of court process” that Justice Omotosho attached to its earlier suit. Represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Moyosore Onigbanjo, the company’s appeal argues that Justice Omotosho erred both legally and procedurally.

“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,” Onigbanjo insisted. He further argued that the judge independently introduced this issue without giving MultiChoice a chance to address the court on it.

Onigbanjo’s argument extends to how the case was concluded. He told the Court of Appeal that the High Court had “erred in law” by dismissing MultiChoice’s suit outright rather than striking it out, thus preventing the company from refiling. 

He says the Appeal Court should invalidate the dismissal and confirm that MultiChoice’s lawsuit was legitimate.

On the other side, the FCCPC’s legal team, led by Prof. Joseph Abugu (SAN),  is challenging the High Court’s ruling which weakened its enforcement powers. 

According to the FCCPC, it acted within its statutory authority when it issued interim directives to stop MultiChoice’s proposed price hike. Abugu argued that “the FCCPC does not have the power to and has not engaged in price fixing,” but rather moved to stop everything that could exploit Nigerian consumers.

The FCCPC’s stance is that MultiChoice’s argument of operating in a free market doesn’t exempt it from regulatory oversight. “The television and broadcast industry, in which the pay TV is a participant in, is also a regulated sector in Nigeria,” Abugu noted. He stressed that the FCCPC has a legal mandate to intervene when a dominant market player threatens consumer welfare.

In its eight-point appeal, the FCCPC said the High Court’s interpretation of its powers was flawed and led to a miscarriage of justice. The Commission pointed to the evidence it submitted, including MultiChoice’s consistent price increases, to show that consumers were being exploited. 

“The price increase charts presented by the FCCPC…clearly proved a trend of capricious, arbitrary and incessant exorbitant price increases by the pay TV,” the Commission stated.

Interestingly, the FCCPC also responded to the court’s comment that other companies were not similarly targeted. The Commission dismissed this as irrelevant to the case, asserting that its investigation was specifically triggered by a complaint against MultiChoice.

A date is yet to be fixed for the Appeal Court hearing. In the meantime, the ruling from the High Court remains enforceable unless a stay of execution is granted.

At stake is more than just a legal technicality. MultiChoice’s March 1, 2025, price hikes, the second in less than a year, led to objections and complaints from Nigerian consumers, who feel trapped in a market with limited alternatives. 

Though the company attempted to counter this perception by halving the price of its decoders from N20,000 to N10,000 in June, the public is not satisfied.