The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed a case initiated by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE, which seeks to prevent the issuance of oil import licenses to certain oil marketing companies, until January 30th for a hearing.
Henzodaily understands that the hearing, chaired by Justice Inyang Ekwo, which was originally scheduled to take place, could not proceed due to Dangote Refinery’s delay in serving its amended originating summons to the defendants.
Dangote Refinery has named the NMDPRA and the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) as the 1st and 2nd defendants in the case.
Additionally, AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited have been included as the 3rd to 7th defendants in the originating summons, which is marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024 and dated September 6.
The oil company is seeking a court ruling to invalidate the import licenses granted by NMDPRA to NNPCL and the five other companies for the importation of refined petroleum products.
Furthermore, Dangote is requesting the court to declare that NMDPRA has violated Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by issuing licenses for petroleum product importation, which should only occur in situations of product shortages.
The company is also claiming ₦100 billion in damages against NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licenses to NNPCL and the five companies for importing petroleum products, among other requests.
During the proceedings, the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim, informed the court that the session was set for a report on settlement or service.
However, he noted that they had been unable to proceed with serving the necessary documents, and discussions regarding reconciliation had not yet taken place due to a motion filed to amend their originating summons, which was prompted by an error identified in the initial application.
Argument Between Counsels
Counsel for NMDPRA, Mathew Bukar, SAN; representing the 3rd, 4th, and 7th defendants (AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Limited), Ahmed Raji, SAN; and counsel for the 5th and 6th defendants (T. Time Petroleum and 2015 Petroleum Limited), Divine Oguru, informed the court that they had not yet received the plaintiff’s application.
In contrast, Ademola Abimbola, who represented NNPCL (the 2nd defendant), stated that he had only been served with the application shortly before the court session commenced, around 9 am that morning.
Abimbola noted that Dangote Refinery had provided them with the amended originating summons due to their objection regarding the inclusion of the 2nd defendant in the suit, as the name under which it was sued did not match its registered name.
The attorney explained that the plaintiff had amended the suit in light of media coverage and indicated that they would review the application to formulate an appropriate response.
NMDPRA, through a counter affidavit submitted by Idris Musa, a Senior Regulatory Officer, requested the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it was misconceived, lacking merit, and incompetent.
Musa contended that Dangote Refinery was not entitled to any of the reliefs being sought.
In the application dated and filed on December 13, 2024, he asserted that the current production levels of Dangote Refinery do not satisfy the national daily petroleum products sufficiency requirement.
He further stated that, in accordance with Section 317 [9] of the PIA (Petroleum Industry Act), NMDPRA had issued licenses to import petroleum products to companies with established records in international product trading to address product shortages.
Additionally, he emphasized that the agency is tasked with promoting competition and preventing the abuse of dominant market positions and unhealthy monopolies within the oil and gas sector.
He refuted the claim that NMDPRA is involved in any alleged “grand conspiracy and concerted efforts” against the refinery, characterizing it as “an allegation for which the plaintiff has provided no facts or evidence to substantiate.”
In its preliminary objection, NNPCL also requested the court to dismiss the case on the grounds of incompetence.
Furthermore, the oil marketers, in a collective counter affidavit, informed the court that approving Dangote’s application would have detrimental consequences for the nation’s oil sector.
They asserted that the intention to monopolize the oil industry poses a significant threat to the country.
The three marketers—AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited—in their response, contended that the plaintiff failed to supply sufficient petroleum products to meet the daily needs of Nigerians.
They also maintained that there was no evidence presented to the court to support the opposite claim.