The Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo on Monday, 20 January, 2025, adjourned until January 30 to hear a suit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE against the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority and six others.
Justice Ekwo granted the new date following an application by the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim (SAN), who sought leave to amend the originating summons.
Dangote Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, is seeking to halt the issuance of oil import licenses to some oil marketers.
Mentioned in the suit as 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 prayed the court to nullify the import licenses issued by the NMDPRA to the NNPCL and the five other companies for importing refined petroleum products, arguing that such actions violate Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA).
The company claimed that these licenses should only be issued in cases of proven shortfalls in local supply and accused NMDPRA of failing to support local refineries as mandated by the PIA.
Additionally, Dangote Refinery sought N100 billion in damages against the NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licenses to the NNPCL and the other marketers.
In response, three major oil marketers—AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited—filed a counter-affidavit urging the court to dismiss Dangote Refinery’s suit.
The marketers argued that Dangote Refinery does not produce enough petroleum products to meet Nigeria’s daily consumption needs and that monopolising the sector would harm the economy. They maintained that the import licenses issued to them were lawful and in compliance with the PIA, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, and other relevant laws.
They further warned that granting Dangote Refinery exclusive control of the petroleum sector would eliminate competition, drive up prices, and destabilise the country’s fragile economy.
The marketers also cautioned that relying solely on Dangote Refinery for petroleum products could lead to supply shortages and higher costs in the event of operational disruptions at the refinery.
At Monday’s resumed hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim (SAN), informed the court that the matter had been fixed for a report on settlement or service. However, he stated that he had not been able to serve the amended originating summons on the defendants.
He added that the issue of settlement could not be addressed due to a motion filed to amend their originating summons, due to the errors in the earlier application.
Similarly, the defendants’ counsel confirmed they had not been served and requested proper service before the case could proceed.
At Monday’s resumed hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim (SAN), informed the court that the matter had been fixed for a report on settlement or service. However, he stated that he had not been able to serve the amended originating summons on the defendants.
He added that the issue of settlement could not be addressed due to a motion filed to amend their originating summons, due to the errors in the earlier application.
Similarly, the defendants’ counsel confirmed they had not been served and requested proper service before the case could proceed.
Mathew Bukar (SAN) appeared for the NMDPRA, Ahmed Raji (SAN) represented the 3rd, 4th, and 7th defendants AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, while Divine Oguru appeared for the 5th and 6th defendants T. Time Petroleum and 2015 Petroleum Limited.
NNPCL counsel, Ademola Abimbola, on his part, informed the court that he had only been served with the application this morning, shortly before the court session began.
Abimbola noted that Dangote Refinery served the amended originating summons following objections that the 2nd defendant (NNPCL) should not have been included in the suit, as it was sued under an incorrect registered name.
He further claimed that the plaintiff amended the suit after it became public in the media, adding that the application would be reviewed for an appropriate response.
Justice Ekwo instructed Dangote Refinery’s counsel to ensure the case is properly positioned to be heard on the next adjourned date.
“You have not been able to position this matter to be heard, and that is the cause of the adjournment,” Justice Ekwo said.
The plaintiff’s counsel requested ten days to serve all parties in the suit. Upon his request, Justice Ekwo adjourned the case to January 30 to allow all parties to complete the filing and service of court processes.
Meanwhile, another party, represented by Olanrewaju Oshinaike, sought to be joined in the matter but was asked to stand down until the issue of service was resolved.
Source: The Punch online
