A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to enforce its earlier directive against Coscharis Motors in a consumer dispute involving a defective luxury vehicle sold to a customer, Florence Ozor.
The ruling was delivered on Wednesday by Justice Emeka Nwite following a motion for judicial review filed by the complainant.
Background of the dispute
The case centres on a 2024 Range Rover Sport purchased in September 2024 from Coscharis Motors. According to court filings and FCCPC records, the vehicle was delivered to the buyer, Florence Ozor, in November 2024 but allegedly developed recurring faults within six months, including a defective right taillight.
Despite several repair attempts, the issues reportedly persisted, prompting the buyer to petition the FCCPC over alleged violation of consumer protection laws.
FCCPC mediation and initial ruling
The FCCPC intervened in July 2025, requesting detailed explanations from the dealer and later convening a mediation session in August 2025 attended by both parties.
During mediation, Coscharis Motors reportedly offered three settlement options:
- return of the repaired vehicle with an additional one-year warranty
- replacement with another vehicle, with cost-sharing between parties
- full refund of the purchase price
The complainant rejected the refund option and insisted on a full replacement without additional cost.
After reviewing the matter under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, the FCCPC concluded that the vehicle supplied was defective and issued a compliance order in September 2025.
The directive required Coscharis Motors to either:
- provide a replacement 2024 model Range Rover Sport at no extra cost with a two-month trial period, or
- refund the current market price if defects persisted, or
- supply a 2025 model with the customer paying only the price difference
The commission gave the company 14 business days to comply.
Court ruling and enforcement order
However, the court found that Coscharis Motors did not comply with the FCCPC’s directive within the stipulated timeframe.
Instead of fully implementing the settlement terms, the company reportedly returned to the commission without the complainant’s involvement, leading to further unresolved meetings.
Dissatisfied with the lack of enforcement, the complainant approached the court seeking an order compelling the FCCPC to act.
Coscharis Motors, through its legal team, argued that the suit was premature and an abuse of court process.
In his judgment, Justice Nwite held that the FCCPC had a statutory duty to enforce its own compliance orders and could not ignore them once issued.
The court granted an order of mandamus compelling the FCCPC to enforce its September 2025 decision.
The judge further ruled that regulatory orders issued by the FCCPC remain binding unless set aside by a court or formally complied with under the law.
He also directed the commission to exercise its enforcement powers under Section 150(4) of the Act, including possible shutdown of the company’s premises or other administrative sanctions until compliance is achieved.
Implications
The ruling reinforces the enforcement powers of consumer protection regulators in Nigeria and underscores the legal obligation of agencies to implement their own decisions when disputes arise between consumers and corporate entities.
It also places renewed scrutiny on luxury vehicle dealerships and consumer rights enforcement in high-value transactions.