Consumer Protection Rights And Telecom Liability: AN Analysis OF ANENE V MTN Nigeria Communications PLC (2025) 16 NWLR (PT 2010)

Contributor: Okosa Chinwendu Marycynthia

Introduction

Consumer protection law in Nigeria has undergone significant evolution, particularly with the enactment of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) in 2018, which broadened the scope of rights available to consumers across all sectors. However, in the telecommunications industry, persistent issues such as unauthorised deductions,^[1] poor service delivery,^[2] and weak frameworks^[3] continue to undermine consumer confidence. The judiciary has, therefore, become a crucial arbiter in striking a balance between corporate interests and consumer rights. The case of Anene v. MTN Nigeria Communications PLC^[4] presents a landmark decision that interrogates telecom liability under the FCCPA and affirms the enforceability of consumer protection principles within Nigeria’s rapidly expanding telecommunications landscape.

This paper examines the legal implications of the case, its contribution to consumer jurisprudence, and its broader impact on corporate accountability in Nigeria’s digital economy.

Consumer Protection Rights

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018, is the principal Act enacted for the primary purpose of ensuring consumer protection in Nigeria. It establishes the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Consumer (FCCPC),^[5] which is responsible for the administration of the Act. Amongst the objectives of the Act is the need to protect and promote the interests and welfare of consumers by providing consumers with a wider variety of quality products at competitive prices.^[6] Another key objective is the prohibition of restrictive or unfair business practices that prevent, restrict, or distort competition or constitute an abuse of a dominant position of market power in Nigeria.^[7] This ensures that consumers enjoy the products or services they purchase seamlessly. Additionally, it provides for the rights of consumers,^[8] which are vital for the enjoyment of goods and services purchased by or rendered to consumers.

In furtherance of the above, the United Nations Guideline for Consumer Protection (UNGCP) set out what it addresses as (eleven) legitimate needs, which the Guidelines are intended to meet, and it is expected that these rights ought to be recognized and respected by all governments and businesses. The purpose of this is to ensure that Member States develop, strengthen, and maintain a strong consumer protection policy.^[9] Some of these legitimate needs include access by consumers to essential goods and services, the protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers, the protection of consumers from hazards to their health and safety, etc.^[10]

In light of the above, consumer rights protection is not just an issue of domestic concern; it is also recognized globally, especially in developing countries.

Overview of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003

Primarily, the Act creates and provides a regulatory framework for the Nigerian communications industry. One of its key objectives is to promote the provision of modern, universal, efficient, reliable, affordable, and easily accessible communications services and the widest range thereof throughout Nigeria.^[11] Also, it ensures the protection of the rights and interests of service providers and consumers within Nigeria.^[12] The Commission established by the Act for the regulation of the communication sector in Nigeria is the Nigerian Communications Commission.^[13]

The Act provides that all service providers (entities that provide communication services to the public) shall, in respect of their specific services, meet such minimum standards of quality of service as the Commission may from time to time specify and publish; deal reasonably with consumers; and adequately address consumer complaints.^[14] In other words, this provision underscores the obligation of telecommunication providers to ensure that consumers receive fair treatment and satisfactory service. It establishes a duty to maintain quality standards, act reasonably in all dealings with consumers, and resolve complaints efficiently. Failure to meet these obligations may render the service provider liable for breach of consumer rights, thereby reinforcing accountability within the telecommunications sector.

Complaints under the Nigerian Communications Sector

While it is laudable that comprehensive legislation has been in place for the protection of consumer rights in the communications sector, consumers are still faced with challenges that disrupt their seamless utilization of telecommunication services in Nigeria. It was reported that between March and August 2025, the FCCPC received 8,255 complaints from aggrieved Nigerians – 409 of the complaints brought against operators in the telecommunications sector.^[15] The data covers consumer grievances ranging from unfair charges, service failure, unauthorized deductions, deceptive marketing, poor disclosure of terms, product defects, and failure to provide redress within acceptable timelines.^[16]

Additionally, the NCC noted the high level of consumer complaints in respect of forceful subscriptions to Value-Added Services (VAS), as well as airtime deductions for these subscriptions.^[17] This underscores the fact that there is a need for service providers to be adequately sanctioned for lack of accountability in ensuring the protection and abuse of consumer protection rights. Hence, the courts play a pivotal role in enforcing accountability and safeguarding consumer rights by ensuring that service providers adhere to regulatory standards and do not exploit consumers through unfair or unauthorised practices. The court vested with the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out of the NCA 2003 is the Federal High Court.^[18]

At this juncture, it is pertinent to examine a key judicial decision relating to the enforcement of consumer protection rights in Nigeria.

An Analysis of Anene v MTN Nigeria Communications PLC^[19]

The case of Anene v. MTN Nigeria Communications PLC^[20] serves as a judicial affirmation of the courts’ unwavering commitment to upholding and protecting consumer rights within the legal framework in Nigeria.

The facts of the case is that Mr. Anene Ezugwu, a subscriber of MTN Nigeria, sued the company before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, alleging illegal deductions from his airtime for caller tune services he never subscribed to. Despite earlier assurances and a refund of ₦700 by MTN, the deductions continued. He sought declaratory reliefs, injunctions, a refund of all deductions, ₦50 million in general damages, and ₦1 million as litigation costs. The trial court found in his favour, awarding ₦5 million in general damages and ₦500,000 as costs against MTN.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellate court affirmed the finding of liability against the appellant but held that the quantum of general damages awarded by the trial court was excessive and unjustified in the circumstances. Consequently, it reduced the general damages to ₦400,000 and reassessed the cost of litigation, which had not been particularized, to ₦100,000.

Still aggrieved, the respondent in the Court of Appeal further appealed to the Supreme Court. The apex court, allowing the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of the trial court. It upheld the award of ₦5,000,000 as general damages and ₦500,000 as cost of litigation, while additionally granting ₦3,000,000 as cost of appeal, thereby ordering MTN to pay a total of ₦8,500,000 for the violation of consumer rights.

Thus, the decision carries significant implications for consumer protection rights and telecommunications liability in Nigeria. Firstly, it reinforces the judiciary’s resolve to hold telecommunication service providers accountable for unlawful deductions, unauthorised subscriptions, and breaches of consumer trust. The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores that service providers owe a duty of care to subscribers and must ensure transparency and fair dealing in their service operations.

Secondly, the decision serves as a judicial deterrent against exploitative or negligent practices by telecom operators, affirming that consumer rights are enforceable. Additionally, it establishes that courts are prepared to award substantial damages where consumer rights are violated. This shows a shift towards greater judicial protection of individual consumers against corporate misconduct.

Finally, the case strengthens the liability regime for telecommunications companies, compelling them to adopt robust compliance frameworks, enhance complaint resolution mechanisms, and maintain transparent billing systems to avoid sanctions and reputational damage.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decision in Anene v. MTN Nigeria Communications PLC represents a landmark advancement in the enforcement of consumer protection rights within Nigeria’s telecommunications sector. It stresses the commitment of the judiciary to safeguarding consumers against exploitative corporate practices. It also highlights the accountability of service providers under the FCCPA and NCC. By upholding substantial damages, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that ensures greater transparency in Nigeria’s telecom industry.

1. NCC, ‘Press Release: NCC Uncovers Large Volume of Forceful and Illegal Deductions by Network Providers, Set to Order Refund to Consumers’, < https://ncc.gov.ng/media-centre/press-releases/press-release-ncc-uncovers-large-volume-forceful-and-illegal-deductions> accessed 26 October, 2025. ↑
2. Falore, O, and Jidda, S, ‘Can you Hear me Now? Addressing the Legal and Regulatory Challenges of Telecom Service Failures in Nigeria’, < https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/social-media/1689342/can-you-hear-me-now-addressing-the-legal-and-regulatory-challenges-of-telecom-service-failures-in-nigeria> (10 October, 2025) accessed 26 October, 2025. ↑
3. Ibid. ↑
4. (2025) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2010) ↑
5. FCCPA, s 3. ↑
6. Ibid, s 1(c). ↑
7. Ibid, s 1 (d). ↑
8. Ibid, s 114 – 133. ↑
9. UNGCP,  s 3(5), G.A. res. 70/186, U.N. Doc. A/RES/70/186 (Dec. 22, 2015). ↑
10. Ibid. ↑
11. NCA 2003, s 1(c). ↑
12. Ibid, s 1(g). ↑
13. Ibid, s 3. ↑
14. Ibid, s 104. ↑
15. Olayinka, C, ‘FCCPC Receives 9,091 Complaints in 6 Months, Recovers N10bn for Consumers’, < https://guardian.ng/news/fccpc-receives-9091-complaints-in-6-months-recovers-%E2%82%A610bn-for-consumers/> (11 September, 2025) accessed 26 October, 2025. ↑
16. Ibid. ↑
17. NCC, (n1). ↑
18. NCA 2003, s 138. ↑
19. Supra. ↑
20. Ibid. ↑