The Abuja Federal High Court has affirmed the statutory authority of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to investigate consumer complaints relating to the pricing of airline tickets.

The court clarified that the Commission’s investigative powers under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA, 2018) are distinct from the exercise of a power to regulate price.

In a judgment delivered on June 29, Honourable Justice B.F.M. Nyako dismissed the suit filed by Air Peace Limited challenging the Commission’s authority to investigate complaints concerning possible exploitative ticket pricing.

The ruling is consistent with a ruling earlier in April 2026 by Justice James Omotosho in another suit filed by Air Peace contesting the Commission’s power to investigate consumer complaints and issue summons in the exercise of its statutory mandate.

In the April ruling, Justice Omotosho dismissed the airline’s contention as unreasonable.


The latest judicial interpretation by Justice Nyako arose from a suit filed by Air Peace in 2025 following the Commission’s request for information from Air Peace in January 2025 after widespread consumer complaints over substantial increases in airfares on certain domestic routes in December 2024.

Air Peace argued that the Commission lacked authority to inquire into airfare pricing unless the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had first invoked the price regulation provisions of the FCCPA.

The airline therefore sought declarations that the Commission lacked authority to investigate the matter, together with orders perpetually restraining it from doing so.

However, Justice Nyako rejected those arguments. She held that the Commission acted within its investigative powers under Sections 17, 32 and 33 of the FCCPA when it sought information from Air Peace in response to consumer complaints.

The court considered the request to be part of a lawful investigation, dismissing the argument that it amounted to the exercise of statutory price regulation or price control powers under Sections 88, 89 and 90 of the Act.

It stated that the Commission did not direct Air Peace to reduce its fares, prescribe a pricing formula, impose any price or declare the airline’s fares unlawful.

The Court further held that accepting Air Peace’s interpretation would effectively prevent the Commission from investigating complaints relating to pricing unless the President had first invoked Section 88 of the FCCPA.

Such an interpretation, the Court found, would undermine the Commission’s investigative powers whenever pricing complaints arose 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, Tunji Bello, described the decision as an important judicial affirmation of the Commission’s statutory responsibility to investigate market conduct where there are reasonable grounds to believe consumers or competition may be adversely affected.

“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.

“An investigation is a fact-finding process. It is neither a finding of liability nor an enforcement action. Every responsible regulator must be able to inquire into credible complaints affecting consumers and markets without those inquiries being misconstrued as findings of liability, enforcement action or price regulation.”

He said the judgment provides important judicial clarity on the scope of the Commission’s investigative powers while confirming that the exercise of statutory price regulation powers remains governed by the separate legal framework established under the FCCPA.

Bello reaffirmed the Commission’s commitment to exercising its statutory mandate fairly, transparently and in accordance with the rule of law.