The Price Of Expansion: Unpacking The Monopoly Allegations Against H-Medix In Abuja’s Pharmaceutical Market -By Echoga Nicholas Caleb & Ukechi Jackson Wali

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing clash between H-Medix Pharmacy Limited and Max Health has placed Nigeria’s competition and consumer protection framework in the spotlight. It’s clearly a contest over what counts as fair competition in a regulated market and where regulatory discretion ends under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018. And so, a critical question arises: when does business growth become abuse of dominant position?

This article examines the monopoly allegations brought by Max Health against H-Medix in Abuja’s pharmaceutical retail market. The dispute tests the limits of legitimate business expansion under Nigeria’s Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018. Max Health argues that regulatory approvals enabled H-Medix to secure a market advantage that undermines smaller pharmacies. H-Medix denies any abuse of dominance and presents its growth model as efficient and pro-consumer. The article reviews the statutory framework in Sections 70–85 FCCPA, the relevance of Section 76 to regulatory discretion, and recent judicial precedents on dominance and market abuse. It evaluates how the FCCPC’s investigative mandate influences the dispute and considers the wider implications for competition policy, regulatory accountability, and market expansion in regulated sectors. The analysis highlights how the court’s decision will shape future enforcement of dominance rules and clarify the balance between consumer welfare, efficiency, and regulatory oversight.

BACKGROUND
The Federal High Court, Abuja, is set to commence hearing on the 12th of January 2025 in the high-stakes suit filed by Max Health Pharmacy & Stores Ltd against H-Medix Pharmacy & Stores Ltd and several regulatory bodies. These regulatory bodies include the Pharmacy Council of Nigeria (PCN), the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria(PSN), the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). Max Health alleges that PCN and PSN have granted over 11 outlet approvals to H-Medix across Abuja, effectively allowing it to dominate the retail pharmaceutical market. It argues that H-Medix attracts heavy customer traffic through a “one-stop-shop” business model, combining pharmacy services with bakery, grocery, and household goods. Max Health stated further that these models sideline smaller operators and make it nearly impossible for smaller pharmacies to compete on a level playing field.

To halt what it considers a creeping monopolization, Max Health is seeking an injunction restraining further approvals (including one at Life Camp) and an order compelling the FCCPC to conduct a formal monopoly investigation under the FCCPA. H-Medix has strongly rejected the allegations, insisting that every one of its stores operates in full compliance with existing regulations. It highlights that it employs over a hundred licensed pharmacists, and points to numerous rival pharmacies located within short distances of its outlets as proof of healthy competition. H-Medix has also filed a counterclaim for ₦150 million in damages and a public apology, arguing that “dominant abuse” is undefined under pharmacy regulation and must be proven through concrete acts like predatory pricing or exclusionary conduct. The FCCPC informed the court that it has already begun a preliminary inquiry into the allegations and cannot halt lawful business expansion in the absence of evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. It further argues that Max Health’s case is premature and procedurally defective because the Commission’s investigation is ongoing.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: SECTIONS 70–85 FCCPA
Under Nigeria’s Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018, simply being the biggest player in the market is not illegal. Sections 70 to 72 Makes this clear by defining dominance and prohibiting its abuse. Dominance only becomes illegal when a company weaponizes its influence to restrict market entry, manipulate prices, or limit the options available to consumers. Sections 73 to 75 deal with restrictive agreements. These include collusion, coordinated market sharing, or any agreement that unfairly tilts the market in favour of a person or group of persons. These provisions become relevant if evidence links H-Medix and any regulator in a way that suggests coordinated advantage.

Further, Section 72(3) stands at the centre of this case. It empowers the FCCPC to approve or exempt certain conduct that might appear anti-competitive on the surface but promotes innovation, efficiency, or consumer welfare. This section captures the core issue in the dispute: whether H-Medix’s growth reflects abusive dominance or legitimate business efficiency. Finally, Sections 81 to 85 outline the FCCPC’s investigative and enforcement powers. They allow the Commission to summon witnesses, demand documents, and issue corrective orders where necessary. These provisions ensure that allegations of monopoly are grounded in verifiable evidence rather than assumptions.

HOW SECTION 76 SHAPES THE ARGUMENT
Max Health is leaning hard on the interpretation of Section 76 , which discourages regulators from making decisions that entrench a monopoly or create unfair preferences. Its argument suggests that the approvals granted by the PCN and PSN gave H-Medix a market edge that other pharmacies could not reasonably match. The strength of its case will depend on whether it can show that these approvals meaningfully weakened competition. However, it does appear that H-Medix has taken a convenient shield within the concept of exemption under Section 72(3) . It argues that its operations increase consumer access to quality pharmaceuticals, create jobs, and stabilise prices through economies of scale. If these claims hold, these benefits could outweigh competitive concerns, allowing its dominance to be viewed as pro-consumer rather than anti-competitive. For the FCCPC, Section 76 provides the procedural discipline; no enforcement action until an investigation establishes actual consumer harm. The Commission’s decision to run a preliminary inquiry aligns with this statutory requirement.

JUDICIAL AND COMPARATIVE CONTEXT
Nigeria’s courts have begun to clarify the FCCPC’s jurisdiction and the evidentiary threshold for proving abuse of dominance. In Festus Onifade v. MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd, the Competition Tribunal held that the claimant failed to prove that MultiChoice abused its market dominance in the pay television market. That case underscored that market size alone does not amount to monopoly power.

Similarly, in a 2025 Federal High Court decision on the telecommunications sector, Emeka Nnubia v. Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment & Others (Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1009/2024) heard by the Federal High Court, Nigeria, on 7 February 2025, the court reaffirmed the FCCPC’s authority to regulate competition across all industries. This strengthens the Commission’s role as the primary guardian of market conduct in Nigeria. These precedents suggest that the burden on Max Health is heavy; it must prove not just dominance but harmful exclusionary conduct.

THE BIGGER PICTURE
Whichever way the learned judges of the Federal High Court decide on this matter, the judgment is set to shape how far companies can expand within tightly regulated sectors. A decision in favour of Max Health could broaden judicial scrutiny over how regulatory bodies like PCN and PSN issue approvals, signalling that regulatory decisions must align with competition laws. A decision in favour of H-Medix could affirm the position that growth built on efficiency and consumer demand remains lawful, reinforcing a more liberal, growth-friendly market environment. Either way, the judgment will clarify the boundaries between the FCCPC, PCN, and the courts in balancing efficiency, consumer access, and fair competition in Nigeria’s evolving healthcare retail sector.

CONCLUSION
At its core, the dispute between H-Medix and Max Health goes beyond a disagreement between two market players. It represents a critical test of how Nigeria interprets “dominance”, “public benefit”, and regulatory responsibility under Section 76 FCCPA. The court’s decision is likely to set a benchmark for future expansion strategies across pharmaceuticals, retail, and other regulated sectors. It will also strengthen judicial precedence on “dominant abuse” and “monopoly”. Stakeholders now wait to see whether the judgment will tighten scrutiny on dominant firms or reinforce a more permissive view of consumer-driven scale. Time will tell!

AUTHORS:

Echoga Nicholas Caleb

Echoga Nicholas Caleb

Echoga Caleb is the Managing Partner of Chayfiled Law Practice where he also doubles as the Team Lead of the firm’s Corporate and Commercial Law Practice.

Caleb is a transactional attorney also having solid expertise in commercial litigation which has seen him advise and represent diverse clients in a plethora of transactions. Beyond his interest in law, Caleb is an avid reader and an excellent table tennis player.

Ukechi Jackson Wali

Ukechi Jackson Wali

Ukechi is an associate at Chayfield Law Practice and a solid member of the Firm’s Corporate and Commercial Practice. She equally has commendable expertise in criminal law and human rights law.

REFERENCES
1. FCT Court to Hear Monopoly Suit Between Max Health and H-Medix https://www.lawyard.org/news/fct-court-to-hear-monopoly-suit-between-max-health-and-h%E2%80%91medix/

2. Medix-Max-Health-FCCPC Clash in Multi-Million Naira Lawsuit Over Abuja Outlets https://nairametrics.com/2025/11/05/h-medix-max-health-fccpc-clash-in-multi-million-naira-lawsuit-over-abuja-outlets/

3. Federal High Court Affirms FCCPC Oversight in Competition Matters https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/antitrust-eu-competition/1603624/federal-high-court-affirms-fccpcs-oversight-in-competition-matters accessed 7th November 2025

4. Tribunal Dismisses Suit Against Multichoice Tariff https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/552906-tribunal-dismisses-suit-against-multichoices-tariff-hike.html accessed 7th November 2025

5. Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018