The Federal High Court in Abuja has upheld the authority of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to investigate consumer complaints relating to airline ticket pricing, dismissing a suit filed by Air Peace Limited challenging the Commission’s statutory powers.
In a judgment delivered on June 29, 2026, Justice B.F.M. Nyako ruled that the FCCPC acted within its legal mandate under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), 2018, when it sought information from Air Peace following widespread consumer complaints over sharp increases in domestic airfares in December 2024.
The court held that the Commission’s authority to investigate consumer complaints is distinct from the statutory power to regulate or control prices, rejecting the airline’s argument that the FCCPC could not inquire into airfare pricing unless the President had first activated the price regulation provisions of the FCCPA.
The ruling marks the second judicial victory for the Commission against Air Peace on the issue within three months, reports Daily Independent.
Earlier in April 2026, Justice James Omotosho dismissed a similar suit in which Air Peace challenged the FCCPC’s powers to investigate consumer complaints and issue summons in the course of carrying out its statutory responsibilities. The court had described the airline’s position as unreasonable.
The latest case stemmed from a suit instituted by Air Peace in 2025 after the FCCPC requested information from the airline in January 2025 following numerous complaints from passengers over significant increases in ticket prices on some domestic routes.
Air Peace had asked the court to declare that the Commission lacked the authority to investigate airfare pricing in the absence of presidential intervention under the FCCPA’s price regulation provisions. The airline also sought a perpetual injunction restraining the FCCPC from conducting such an investigation.
However, Justice Nyako dismissed the claims, holding that the Commission lawfully exercised its investigative powers under Sections 17, 32 and 33 of the FCCPA.
The court ruled that the FCCPC’s request for information formed part of a legitimate fact-finding exercise and did not amount to the regulation or control of prices under Sections 88, 89 and 90 of the Act.
According to the judgment, the Commission neither directed Air Peace to reduce its ticket fares nor imposed any pricing formula or declared the airline’s fares unlawful.
Justice Nyako further held that adopting Air Peace’s interpretation of the law would effectively prevent the FCCPC from investigating pricing-related consumer complaints unless the President first invoked Section 88 of the Act.
The court noted that such an interpretation would significantly undermine the Commission’s investigative responsibilities and could not have been the intention of the legislature.
Reacting to the judgment, the Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, Mr. Tunji Bello, described the decision as a significant judicial affirmation of the Commission’s statutory responsibility to investigate market conduct whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that consumers or competition may be adversely affected.
He said the court had reaffirmed the important legal distinction between investigating consumer complaints and regulating prices.
“The Court has again affirmed an important principle under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act. Investigating consumer complaints is fundamentally different from regulating prices. The FCCPC neither sought to fix nor regulate Air Peace’s fares. It simply exercised its lawful authority to obtain information as part of an investigation into a matter of legitimate consumer concern,” Bello said.
He added that an investigation is essentially a fact-finding process and should not be interpreted as a determination of liability, an enforcement action or an attempt to regulate prices.
According to him, the judgment provides important judicial clarity on the scope of the FCCPC’s investigative powers while confirming that the exercise of statutory price regulation remains subject to the separate legal framework established under the FCCPA.
Bello reaffirmed the Commission’s commitment to carrying out its statutory mandate fairly, transparently and in accordance with the rule of law.
