A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has reserved judgment in a suit filed by the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPAN), challenging the legality of the Digital, Electronic, Online, and Non-traditional Consumer Lending Regulations (DEON Regulations) issued by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
Justice A. L. Allagoa fixed July 20, 2026, for judgment after the parties adopted their final written addresses and concluded arguments in the matter marked FHC/L/CS/760/2026.
The proceedings, held at the court’s Ikoyi Division on Monday, featured extensive legal arguments over the scope of the FCCPC’s regulatory powers within Nigeria’s digital economy and telecommunications sector.
Although the litigants were absent in court, the plaintiff, WASPAN, was represented by senior advocate Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, alongside Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN, Muyiwa Odubela, and Pelumi Agbeyo, while the FCCPC was represented by Olufunke Aboyade, SAN, with A. Aribisala, B. Alexander, and I.M. Balogun.
At the commencement of proceedings, counsel informed the court that issues surrounding the earlier contempt proceedings had been amicably resolved between the parties.
Following the development, Pinheiro withdrew the Form 49 contempt process previously initiated by the plaintiff, prompting the court to strike out the application.
The hearing thereafter shifted to the FCCPC’s preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.
Arguing the objection, Aboyade contended that the DEON Regulations had been in existence since July 2025 and questioned the delay in instituting the action.
She further argued that the regulations were introduced as consumer protection measures and maintained that the plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory statutory pre-action notice requirements before approaching the court.
However, Pinheiro urged the court to dismiss the objection, arguing that the FCCPC improperly introduced disputed facts without supporting affidavit evidence.
According to him, issues such as delay and alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements could not validly be raised through written submissions alone.
The senior advocate further argued that constitutional provisions guaranteeing access to the courts override technical objections relating to pre-action notices where a litigant alleges imminent regulatory injury.
Pinheiro also accused the FCCPC of adopting inconsistent legal positions by simultaneously challenging the jurisdiction of the court while seeking affirmative reliefs from the same court.
On the substantive suit, WASPAN urged the court to invalidate portions of the DEON Regulations on the grounds that the FCCPC exceeded its statutory powers.
The plaintiff argued that while the FCCPC possesses powers to make regulations under its establishing law, those powers are restricted to consumer protection matters and cannot supersede sector-specific legislation regulating telecommunications and financial services.
Pinheiro specifically argued that the Commission was unlawfully attempting to exercise powers already vested in the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
He further submitted that subsidiary legislation cannot override existing Acts of the National Assembly, insisting that the disputed regulations conflict with provisions of both the Nigerian Communications Act and the Central Bank of Nigeria Act.
In response, the FCCPC defended the validity of the regulations and insisted that its statutory mandate extends across sectors where consumer rights and market competition issues arise.
Aboyade also argued that defendants in originating summons proceedings are entitled to formulate and argue independent legal issues in response to claims brought before the court.
During the final exchanges, the plaintiff additionally challenged documentary exhibits tendered by the FCCPC, arguing that the materials lacked evidential value and failed to establish any direct connection between alleged “loan shark” activities and members of WASPAN.
After listening to all submissions, Justice Allagoa adjourned the matter till July 20, 2026, for judgment.
