Court orders FCCPC to close Coscharis Motors over defective Range Rover sold to customer

In September 2024, Ozor, the applicant, bought a 2024 Range Rover Sport worth N260 million from Coscharis Motors.

According to an FCCPC notice letter seen by TheCable, the applicant started driving the car in November 2024.

Six months later, the vehicle “developed recurrent faults, including a defective right taillight”.

The applicant told the commission that despite repairs, the defects persisted.

Subsequently, the applicant lodge a complaint to the FCCPC “alleging supply of a defective vehicle in violation of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018 (“FCCPA”)”.

On July 16, 2025, the FCCPC wrote to the car dealer requesting a detailed report of its findings and remedial actions on the issue.

The commission, on August 15, 2025, convened a mediation meeting, which was attended by both parties.

“At the mediation, the Respondent (the car dealer) proposed three settlement options: (i) return of the repaired vehicle with an additional one-year warranty, (ii) replacement with another vehicle of the same model with the cost difference shared by the Complainant, the Respondent, and the manufacturer, or (iii) refund of the purchase price,” the letter reads.

“The Complainant rejected the refund option and insisted that any replacement must be at no additional cost to her.

“The Commission, having considered the complaint, the positions of both parties, and the applicable provisions of the FCCPA 2018 in particular Sections 130(1)(c), 131(1)(b)-(c), 132, and 136(3) finds that the Respondent supplied defective goods to the Complainant and is liable to provide an appropriate remedy.”

Ruling on the matter, the FCCPC ordered the car dealer to deliver a new 2024 model Range Rover Sport at no further cost to the applicant for use under an extended trial period of two months.

The agency said if within the trial period, the applicant discovered any similar defect, the car dealer shall refund the applicant the current price of a 2024 Range Rover Sport, “taking into account any discount that applied at the time of initial purchase”.

“Alternatively, the Respondent shall deliver to the Complainant a 2025 model Sport, provided that the Complainant pays the agreed difference in cost between the market price of the 2025 model and the amount earlier paid for the 2024 model,” the FCCPC said.

The commission said the compliance with the order, signed by Nsitem Chizenum, its head of legal services, on September 18, 2025, shall be within 14 business days.

‘THE JUDGMENT’ 

Following the expiration of the 14-day compliance window, the car dealer did not comply with the settlement terms stipulated by the FCCPC on September 18, 2025.

According to the court document, instead of complying with the settlement terms, the car dealer approached the FCCPC without the knowledge of the applicant.

Subsequently, the FCCPC invited the applicant for additional meetings where it proposed the same settlement options, which the applicant had previously rejected.

The car in question has been with the car dealer since the FCCPC investigation commenced.

Displeased by the development, the applicant approached the court to seek an order compelling the FCCPC to enforce the September 2025 settlement orders.

During the court proceedings, counsel to FCCPC asked the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the suit is “premature and abuse of court process”.

In his judgment, Nwite held that the FCCPC failed to enforce its orders despite the failure of the car dealer to comply with the settlement orders.

The presiding judge granted the order of mandamus compelling the FCCPC to take appropriate steps within the ambit of its statutory powers under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018, to enforce its order and compliance notice issued in September, 2025.

“A DECLARATION is hereby made that the Respondent, as a government agency is bound by its orders as much as the parties involved are bound by same and the Respondent’s compliance notice remains in force until set aside by a court or the Respondent issues a compliance certificate affirming compliance pursuant to SECTION 150 (3) FCCPA 2018,” the judge ruled.

“AN ORDER of this court is hereby made mandating the Respondent, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission by way of mandamus, to enforce/comply with the stipulations of its binding order issued on the 18th of September 2025, and in the furtherance of its statutory powers under the FCCPA 2018 to protect the interest of the consumer.”

He further ordered the commission to enforce the directive by invoking its powers under Section 150(4), including shutting down the dealer’s premises or imposing administrative sanctions until compliance.