The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday dismissed the suit filed by Air Peace Limited seeking to restrain the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission from issuing summons over numerous alleged complaints from passengers nationwide regarding unrefunded ticket fares, canceled flights, among others.
Justice James Omotosho dismissed the suit for “lacking merit,” faulting the airline for attempting to use the court to “shield” itself from investigation by a relevant authority. The bone of contention before the court bordered on the interpretation of Section 148 of the FCCPC Act, which deals with the enforcement of rights by the Commission.
Delivering his judgment, Justice Omotosho cited Section 148(3) of the FCCPC Act, holding that upon initiating or receiving a complaint under the Act, the Commission may: Issue a notice of non-referral to the complainant in the prescribed form if the complaint appears to be frivolous, vexatious, or does not allege any fact that would constitute grounds for a remedy under the Act; Refer the complaint to an industry sector regulator with jurisdiction over the matter for investigation or resolution; or direct an inspector to investigate the complaint as quickly as practicable. The judge stated that a close reading of the provisions shows that the FCCPC “can, on its own,” initiate an investigation or refer complaints to another relevant authority. He held that, when the legislation is read holistically, the FCCPC is not stripped of its powers to investigate complaints and is “at liberty to take any of the options” provided under the Act. He further held that the FCCPC has the requisite powers to initiate investigations into consumer complaints and that the Air Peace suit “has no legal basis.”
Regarding Air Peace’s allegation that it was denied a fair hearing due to the Commission’s refusal to disclose the identities of the complainants, the judge observed that the FCCPC issued several summons for the airline to appear, but Air Peace insisted that the complainants must first be disclosed. “The position (on fair hearing) of the plaintiff (Air Peace) is premature,” Justice Omotosho held. He added that the suit was intended to “shield” the airline from investigation. “The plaintiff (Air Peace) must comply with the summons to appear before the FCCPC,” the judge held. The judge concluded that the case lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
In 2025, Air Peace sued the Commission, alleging that it “unilaterally” commenced a probe into consumer complaints in breach of Section 148 of the FCCPC Act. The airline urged the court to declare that the FCCPC does not have the power to unilaterally investigate consumer complaints without referring the matter to an industry sector regulator or an inspector. Air Peace’s legal team argued that the FCCPC must disclose the identities of those who lodged the complaints, having invited the airline over alleged exploitative ticket pricing, cancelled flights, and refunds. In response, the Commission’s legal team stated that it acted within its statutory powers. The Commission maintained that it did not breach the airline’s rights and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
In a formal summons dated June 13, 2025, the FCCPC directed Air Peace to appear at its headquarters in Abuja on Monday, June 23. The Commission cited Sections 32 and 33 of the FCCPA, warning that non-compliance could result in sanctions, including fines or imprisonment, under Section 33(3). “The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has summoned the management of Air Peace Limited over a deluge of consumer complaints from across the country relating to the non-refund of ticket fares, even in instances where the airline had cancelled its flight operations,” the statement read in part. The Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, also criticised the FCCPC for its public statement questioning Air Peace’s pricing practices.
Under Section 148 of the FCCPC Act: A consumer shall file a complaint with the Commission in the prescribed manner and form, alleging that a party has acted in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The Commission may initiate a complaint concerning any alleged violation on its own motion, through an industry sector regulator, or via an accredited consumer protection group. Under Section 130 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018, consumers are entitled to timely and fair refunds when a service provider—such as an airline—fails to deliver a prepaid service. Specifically, the law affirms that if a business agrees to perform a service but fails to meet expected standards or complete the service (such as in the case of a cancelled flight), the consumer has the right to request a refund proportional to the failure.
