The court had, on 12 March, restrained FCCPC from sanctioning the pay-TV company until the hearing and determination of the substance suit.
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, fixed 8 May for judgement in a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
MultiChoice is seeking to stop the FCCPC from sanctioning it over its recent increase in the DStv and Gotv subscription.
The judge, James Omotosho, fixed the date after counsel for MultiChoice, Moyosore Onigbanjo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and FCCPC's lawyer, J.E.O. Abugu, also a SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Omotosho had, on 12 March, 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.
NAN reports that the FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd to provide explanations regarding the 1 March price review of its packages.
The commission directed the company's chief executive officer to appear for an investigative hearing on 27 February 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.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
However, in the ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice's legal team, 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 3 March, 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," another prayer read.
(NAN)
