Court dismisses Air Peace suit, upholds FCCPC unrefunded ticket summons

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday, dismissed the suit filed by Air Peace Limited seeking to restrain the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from issuing summons over numerous alleged complaints from passengers nationwide regarding unrefunded ticket fares, canceled flights among others.

 

The trial judge, 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 thrust of the matter before the court bordered on the interpretation of Section 148 of the FCCPC Act, which deals with the enforcement of rights by the Commission.

 

In his judgment, Justice Omotosho cited Section 148(3) of the FCCPC Act and held 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.

 

That, the Commission 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 held 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 and 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.

 

 

The judge 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 and held that, “The position (on fair hearing) of the plaintiff (Air Peace) is premature”.

 

Justice Omotosho 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 and  concluded that the case lacks merit and consequently dismissed it.

 

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, maintained that it did not breach the airline’s rights and urged the court to dismiss the suit.