The Federal High Court in Abuja, on
Thursday, dismissed a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited seeking to stop
the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from taking
administrative action against it
Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the
suit was an abuse of court process having been filed after a similar suit was
filed on the issue by a lawyer, Festus Onifade, with Multichoice and FCCPC as
parties in the suit.
Freedomonline reports that MultiChoice, the
operator of DStv and Gotv had, recently, increased the subscription rates on
its packages against an invitation by FCCPC to give explanation on why the
company wanted to effect a price hike.
Justice Omotosho, 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 Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, to challenge
FCCPC’s alleged threat.
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 Moyosore 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.
Justice Omotosho had, on March 27, fixed today for
judgement after counsel for the MultiChoice, Onigbanjo and FCCPC’s lawyer,
Prof. J.E.O. Abugu, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments
for and against the suit.
Delivering the judgement, the judge observed that an
earlier suit filed by Onifade before the same Federal High Court in Abuja, and
in which Multichoice is a party, was still pending before the company decided
to file the instant suit.
The judge said Multichoice could ventilate the issues
in the suit filed by Onifade simply filing a counter claim rather than filing a
separate suit.
“With respect to issue two, abuse of court process
refers to when a party misuses a court process for the purpose of harassing or
annoying his opponent.
“It is to file multiple processes on the same issues
and between the same parties,” he said, citing previous court cases.
According to the judge, the abuse lies in the
multiplicity and the manner or evidence of the right of the parties rather than
the exercise of the right per se.
Citing previous case, Justice Omotosho held that “the
employment of judicial process is generally regarded as abuse of judicial
process where a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the
irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient administration of
justice.”
The judge said MultiChoice also admitted to the
existence of a similar suit In Paragraphs 7 and 8 of its further affidavit.
“Now in that suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 between Mr.
Festus Onifade and Multichoice Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and
Consumer Protection Commission, the plaintiff there had filed a suit
challenging the right of Multichoice to increase its subscription price as same
is unfair.
“The plaintiff therefore sought among others a
declaration that Multichoice suspends its impending price increase for being in
breach of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.
“This instant suit was filed by Multichoice
challenging the powers of the defendant (FCCPC) to regulate its subscription
prices.
“The origin of both suits is from a complaint by the
said Mr Festus Onifade about the alleged unfair increase proposed by
Multichoice Nigeria Limited.
“It is therefore clear as day that weighing both
suits, especially the parties and reliefs sought, the suits are similar and can
be contested in one of the suits and not in different actions,” he said.
He further held that MultiChoice was aware of the suit
number: FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 filed by Onifade on Feb. 27, “which means it was
filed before this instant suit.”
“To my mind, filing this instant suit even though the
defendant in that suit is now the plaintiff is an abuse of court and an
unnecessary and vexatious duplicity of actions.
“Quite dearly, these issues can be dealt with in that
pending suit without the need to file a fresh surt.
“Relying on the above decisions, I therefore hold that
the plaintiff in this suit could have ventilated its grievance in the other
pending suit without the need to file a fresh suit.
“Allowing this suit to go on to conclusion will lead
to a likely conflict of decisions arising from judgments in this court and in
the other suit.
“The long and short of what this court is trying to
say is that this instant suit is an abuse of court process on grounds of
multiplicity of actions.
“Thus this suit must be dismissed for being an abuse
of court process,” the judge ruled.
The judge then proceeded to decline jurisdiction and
dismissed the suit.
However, Justice Omotosho went ahead to determine the
case on the merit and held that since Nigeria runs a free market economy, the
FCCPC lacked the power to interfere in the decisions of private companies to
fix their prices.
The judge held that under Section 88 of the Federal
Competition and Consumer Protection Act, it is only the president of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria that can regulate prices in a regulated industry
and for essential goods, not the kind of services being rendered by the
Multichoice where consumers have choices.
The judge held that the FCCPC had no business querying
how companies fix their prices in a free market economy.
Comments:
Leave a Reply