The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed the hearing of a case filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE against the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority and six others. The case, initially scheduled for Monday, has been rescheduled to January 30.
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the adjournment after the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim (SAN), requested permission to amend the originating summons.
The lawsuit, filed under case number FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, seeks to prevent the issuance of oil import licenses to certain oil marketers.
In the suit, it was mentioned that the 1st to 7th defendants are the NMDPRA, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited.
In its originating summons, Dangote Refinery urged the court to revoke the import licenses granted by the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) to the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and five other firms for importing refined petroleum products. The company argued that these actions contravene Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA).
Dangote Refinery maintained that such licenses should only be issued in cases of verified shortfalls in local supply and accused the NMDPRA of neglecting its duty to support domestic refineries, as stipulated by the PIA.
The company also demanded N100 billion in damages from the NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licenses to the NNPCL and other marketers in violation of the law.
In response, three major oil marketers—AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited—filed a counter-affidavit requesting the court to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Dangote Refinery. The marketers argued that Dangote Refinery does not produce sufficient petroleum products to meet Nigeria’s daily consumption demands, and monopolizing the sector would harm the economy. They contended that the import licenses issued to them were lawful and complied with the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, and other applicable laws.
The marketers further cautioned that granting Dangote Refinery exclusive control of the petroleum sector would stifle competition, increase prices, and destabilize Nigeria’s fragile economy. They also warned that relying solely on Dangote Refinery for petroleum products could result in supply shortages and higher costs if the refinery experiences operational disruptions.
At the hearing on Monday, the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim (SAN), informed the court that the session had been scheduled for a report on settlement or service. However, he disclosed that the amended originating summons had not yet been served on the defendants.
Ibrahim further explained that the settlement discussions could not proceed because a motion had been filed to amend the originating summons to correct errors in the initial application.
In response, the defendants’ counsel confirmed that they had not received proper service of the amended summons and requested that this be rectified before the case could move forward.
Mathew Bukar (SAN) appeared on behalf of the NMDPRA, while Ahmed Raji (SAN) represented the 3rd, 4th, and 7th defendants—AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited. Divine Oguru acted as counsel for the 5th and 6th defendants, T. Time Petroleum and 2015 Petroleum Limited.
Ademola Abimbola, representing the NNPCL, informed the court that he had only been served with the application earlier that morning, shortly before the hearing commenced. He further explained that the amended originating summons was served following objections raised by the NNPCL, which argued that it had been incorrectly named as a defendant in the suit.
Justice Ekwo directed Dangote Refinery’s counsel to ensure the case is adequately prepared for hearing by the next adjourned date. “You have not been able to position this matter to be heard, and that is the cause of the adjournment,” he added.
The plaintiff’s counsel requested ten days to serve all parties involved in the suit. Granting the request, Justice Ekwo adjourned the case to January 30 to allow for the completion of the filing and service of court processes. In the same session, another party, represented by Olanrewaju Oshinaike, applied to be joined in the case. However, the court instructed the party to stand down until the issue of service was resolved.
