Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE filed a lawsuit against the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority and six other parties, and the Federal High Court in Abuja postponed the hearing until January 30.
After the plaintiff’s attorney, George Ibrahim (SAN), requested permission to modify the original summons, Justice Inyang Ekwo allowed the revised date.
In a lawsuit titled FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, Dangote Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE is attempting to stop some oil marketers from being granted licenses to import oil.
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 are listed in the lawsuit as the first through seventh defendants.
Dangote Refinery claimed in its original summons that the NNPCL and the five other firms’ import licenses granted by the NMDPRA for the import of refined petroleum products were invalid, citing violations of Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA).
Dangote Refinery accused NMDPRA of not supporting local refineries as required by the PIA and asserted that these licenses should only be granted in situations when there are demonstrable shortages in local supply.
Furthermore, Dangote Refinery sued the NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to provide import licenses to the NNPCL and the other marketers, claiming N100 billion in damages.
In a counter-affidavit, three significant oil marketers—AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited—urged the court to reject Dangote Refinery’s lawsuit.
The marketers contended that monopolizing the industry would be detrimental to the economy because Dangote Refinery does not generate enough petroleum products to meet Nigeria’s daily consumption needs.
They insisted that the import permits they had been granted were legitimate and compliant with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the PIA, and other pertinent legislation.
They also cautioned that giving Dangote Refinery sole authority over the petroleum industry would destroy competition, raise prices, and upset the already precarious economy of the nation.
Additionally, the marketers warned that depending only on Dangote Refinery for petroleum products may result in supply shortages and increased expenses in the event that the refinery has operational difficulties.
George Ibrahim (SAN), the plaintiff’s attorney, told the court during Monday’s reopened session that the case had been scheduled for a report on settlement or service.
He claimed, however, that he had been unable to serve the defendants with the updated originating summons.
He stated that because of the mistakes in the previous application, a move to amend their original summons was filed, which prevented the settlement issue from being addressed.
In a similar vein, the defendants’ attorney acknowledged that they had not been served and asked that formal service be obtained before the case could continue.
Divine Oguru represented T. Time Petroleum and 2015 Petroleum Limited, Ahmed Raji (SAN) represented AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, and Mathew Bukar (SAN) represented the NMDPRA.
Ademola Abimbola, the attorney for the NNPCL, told the court that he had only received the application on Monday morning, just before the start of the court session.
In response to arguments that the NNPCL shouldn’t have been included in the lawsuit because it was sued under the wrong registered name, Abimbola stated that Dangote Refinery delivered the modified originating summons.
He added that the application would be examined for a suitable response and that the plaintiff had changed the suit after it was made public by the media.
Dangote Refinery’s attorney was directed by Justice Ekwo to make sure the case was in a suitable situation to be heard on the upcoming adjourned date.
Justice Ekwo stated, “The reason for the adjournment is that you have not been able to position this matter to be heard.”
The plaintiff’s attorney asked that all parties in the lawsuit be served within ten days.
In order to give all parties time to finish filing and serving court procedures, Justice Ekwo granted his request and postponed the case to January 30.
Olanrewaju Oshinaike, a representative of another party, attempted to join the case in the interim but was instructed to step aside until the service issue was settled.
ALSO READ:
