Air Peace suffers another court defeat over FCCPC investigation
Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the authority of Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to investigate complaints relating to airline ticket prices, dismissing a suit filed by Air Peace challenging the commission’s powers.
In a judgment delivered on June 29, Justice Binta Nyako ruled that FCCPC acted within its statutory mandate under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 when it requested information from Air Peace following complaints about sharp increases in domestic airfares.
The complaints emerged in December 2024, when passengers raised concerns over significant fare increases on some domestic routes. In response, FCCPC wrote to Air Peace in January 2025, seeking information as part of an investigation into the pricing complaints.
Air Peace subsequently approached the court, arguing that the commission could not investigate airline ticket prices unless the president had first activated the price regulation provisions contained in Sections 88, 89 and 90 of the FCCPA. The airline asked the court to restrain FCCPC from proceeding with the investigation.
However, Nyako rejected the airline’s argument, holding that investigating consumer complaints about prices was different from fixing or regulating those prices.
According to the court, FCCPC neither ordered Air Peace to reduce its fares nor prescribed a pricing formula for the airline. It also did not impose a specific price or declare the airline’s fares illegal.
“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 held.
Nyako ruled that the commission’s actions were covered by its investigative powers under Sections 17, 32 and 33 of FCCPA.
The judge added that accepting Air Peace’s interpretation of the law would prevent FCCPC from investigating almost every consumer complaint involving pricing unless the president first invoked the Act’s price regulation provisions.
“Such an interpretation would undermine the Commission’s investigative powers whenever pricing complaints arose and could not have been the intention of the legislature,” Nyako held.
The judgment represents another legal setback for Air Peace in its challenge against the FCCPC’s authority.
In April 2026, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court dismissed a separate suit filed by the airline questioning the commission’s power to investigate consumer complaints and issue summonses while performing its statutory duties.
Reacting to the latest ruling, the Executive Vice-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, Tunji Bello, described the judgment as further judicial confirmation of the commission’s mandate.
Bello said the court had clarified that investigating complaints from consumers should not be confused with regulating or fixing 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,” he said.
He explained that an investigation was only a fact-finding exercise and did not automatically amount to a declaration of wrongdoing or the commencement of enforcement action against a company.
“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,” Bello added.
The FCCPC chief said the ruling had provided greater clarity on the extent of the commission’s investigative authority, assuring consumers and businesses that the agency would continue to carry out its duties fairly, transparently and in accordance with the law.
What to Know:
The dispute began after passengers complained about sharp increases in domestic airfares in December 2024, prompting FCCPC to seek information from Air Peace in January 2025. The airline argued that the commission could not investigate ticket pricing without presidential activation of the law’s price-control provisions, but the court ruled that fact-finding is different from fixing fares. The decision follows an April 2026 judgment in another Air Peace case that also upheld the FCCPC’s power to investigate complaints and issue summonses. The latest ruling strengthens consumer protection oversight in the aviation sector, but its real impact will depend on whether investigations lead to transparent explanations and meaningful remedies for passengers facing rising ticket costs.
