MultiChoice is seeking to stop the FCCPC from sanctioning it over its recent increase in the DStv and Gotv subscription.
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after counsel for the MultiChoice, Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, and FCCPC’s lawyer, Prof. J.E.O. Abugu, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice 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 Onigbanjo to the effect.
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.” (NAN
