The Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal has rejected the settlement terms and consent order between Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.

This decision comes after the FCCPC withdrew a N186 million fine it had earlier imposed on CCNL for using deceptive trade descriptions.

The ruling was delivered on April 30, 2025, by a three-member panel of the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, led by Thomas Okosu.

Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited had appealed the N186 million fine imposed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission over its labeling and marketing practices, among other concerns in Nigeria.

It was earlier reported that the FCCPC formally accused Coca-Cola Nigeria Ltd and its sister company of using misleading trade descriptions and unfair marketing tactics for their products “Original Taste” and “Less Sugar.”

The FCCPC stated that it found CCNL using allegedly deceptive trade descriptions on two product variants, in violation of Section 116(3) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act.

In a supplementary order, the Commission directed CCNL to pay a penalty of N186,666,666.67 on or before September 6, 2024, for the alleged breach of applicable laws.

At the resumed judgment on Wednesday, CCNL’s counsel, G. Abubakar, informed the tribunal that following the March 18, 2025 hearing, both the appellant and the respondent (FCCPC) continued settlement discussions.

He apologized for raising the matter before the tribunal at that stage of the proceedings.

“I must sincerely apologize to the tribunal for the trouble of writing the judgment,” he said.

He noted that the FCCPC had issued a consent order dated April 24, 2025, pursuant to Section 149 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018.

“Both the appellant and the respondent (FCCPC) also filed terms of settlement dated April 24, 2025,” he added, stating that the notices were filed with the tribunal on April 29, 2025.

While adopting the notices, CCNL’s counsel maintained that the development complied with the FCCPA and other relevant legal provisions.

FCCPC’s lawyer, Ojenike, acknowledged receipt of the settlement terms and the consent order notice dated April 29, 2025, from CCNL’s legal representatives.

“We have also confirmed the execution of the consent order in a communication from the FCCPC’s Director of Legal Services, A.W. Achimugu,” he added.

He noted that the communication reflected the FCCPC’s intent regarding the development.

In his ruling, Justice Thomas Okosu noted that the terms of settlement between the FCCPC and CCNL did not meet the requirements of a proper and legally acceptable application.

“The notice of settlement contains arguments irrelevant to the instant case,” he said, noting they referenced an associated matter.

He acknowledged that while regulatory settlements are encouraged, they must uphold the public interest and not undermine the regulator’s statutory responsibilities.

He added that the settlement seemed to be an attempt to “arrest” the tribunal’s judgment, especially in light of its recent ruling against the Nigerian Bottling Company Limited the Coca-Cola bottling franchise holder.

“These terms of settlement are not supported by law nor are they in the public interest,” the tribunal said, describing the development as “troubling.”

The judge noted that a penalty had been imposed on Coca-Cola for wrongdoing, yet the company secured a settlement with the FCCPC on a “no-fault basis.”

He also questioned why the FCCPC replaced the N186 million penalty with a N198 million reimbursement to the Commission, without providing any explanation for the change.

“The stubbornness in the filings by the parties is grave,” the judge stated, as he dismissed the terms of settlement submitted by the FCCPC and CCNL.

In its judgment, the tribunal held that the FCCPC had constitutionally imposed its findings and the N186 million order on CCNL.

Okosu also determined that CCNL was granted a fair hearing during the FCCPC’s five-year investigation, which included multiple meetings with the company, contradicting the appellant’s claims.

He agreed with the FCCPC’s stance that Coca-Cola misled Nigerian consumers through deceptive trade descriptions, even though the products were NAFDAC-approved.

The tribunal then dismissed CCNL’s appeal for lacking merit and ordered the company to pay the N186 million penalty within 60 days.