FCCPC and WASPAN Resolve Contempt Dispute While Court Holds Judgment in Regulatory Suit

The Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed the contempt proceedings that the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN) had brought against the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). The court acted after the parties notified it that the issues that had prompted the committal action had been settled.

Justice Ambrose Lewis‑Allagoa struck out the contempt application after counsel informed the court that the matters concerning the committal proceedings had been amicably resolved.

The case, identified as FHC/L/CS/760/2026, focused on WASPAN’s challenge to the FCCPC’s Digital, Electronic, Online and Non‑Traditional Consumer Lending Guidelines, 2025 (DEON Regulations). WASPAN argued that the guidelines unlawfully extended the commission’s regulatory reach into areas already overseen by other agencies.

During yesterday’s hearing, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, led the plaintiff’s team together with Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, while Olufunke Aboyade, SAN, represented the FCCPC.

At the start of the proceedings, FCCPC counsel informed the court that discussions between the parties had resolved the contempt issues, allowing the case to move forward to the substantive applications.

Following this development, Pinheiro formally withdrew the Form 49 contempt proceedings that WASPAN had previously filed, leading the court to strike out the application.

The case then proceeded to the hearing of FCCPC’s preliminary objection, which challenged the competence of the suit.

Aboyade argued that the DEON Regulations had been in force since July 2025 and questioned why the plaintiff had waited until now to challenge them. She maintained that the regulations were introduced to protect consumers and further contended that WASPAN had failed to comply with statutory pre‑action notice requirements before filing the suit.

Pinheiro opposed the objection, asserting that FCCPC relied on factual allegations that were not supported by affidavit evidence. He contended that issues of delay and procedural non‑compliance could not be raised through written submissions alone without evidential backing.

He also argued that constitutional provisions guaranteeing citizens access to the courts overrode technical objections related to pre‑action notices, especially where a litigant alleged imminent regulatory harm.

Pinheiro further accused FCCPC of adopting inconsistent legal positions by challenging the court’s jurisdiction while simultaneously seeking judicial relief from the same court.

On the substantive matters, WASPAN urged the court to invalidate portions of the DEON Regulations, claiming that the FCCPC had exceeded its statutory mandate. The association said the commission was attempting to exercise regulatory powers already vested in the Nigerian Communications Commission and the Central Bank of Nigeria under existing laws.

WASPAN maintained that subsidiary legislation could not prevail where it conflicted with Acts of the National Assembly.

In response, FCCPC defended its authority, insisting that its enabling law grants the commission power across sectors where consumer protection issues arise.

Aboyade also argued that defendants in originating summons proceedings were entitled to formulate independent legal issues in defence of claims brought before the court.

During final submissions, the plaintiff challenged the documentary exhibits presented by FCCPC, stating that the materials lacked evidential credibility and did not establish a direct link between the alleged activities of “loan sharks” and members of WASPAN.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Lewis‑Allagoa adjourned the matter until July 20, 2026, for judgment.