Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals has filed an application before the Federal High Court in Abuja to discontinue the suit it filed, seeking to nullify the import licences issued by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority to the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and several oil marketers for the importation of petroleum products.
In a notice of discontinuance signed by the plaintiff’s counsel, Ogwu Onoja (SAN), Dangote Refinery withdrew the suit.
The discontinuance notice read, “Take notice that the plaintiff herein discontinues this suit against the defendants forthwith.”
No reason was disclosed in the application for the decision to withdraw the case.
It was reported that Dangote Refinery, in an originating summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, had asked the court to declare that NMDPRA violated Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act by issuing licences for the importation of petroleum products.
The refinery argued that such licences should only be issued in cases of petroleum product shortfall and asked the court to hold that NMDPRA failed in its statutory duty under the PIA to encourage local refineries such as theirs.
The plaintiff (Dangote Refinery) in its originating summons dated September 6, 2024, sued NMDPRA, NNPCL, AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited as the first to seventh defendants respectively.
Dangote refinery asked the court to award N100 billion in damages against NMDPRA for issuing import licences to oil marketers and permitting the importation of petroleum products.
However, in a counter-affidavit dated November 5, 2024, filed by Ahmed Raji (SAN), three of the oil marketers—AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited—urged the court to dismiss the suit.
In their joint counter-affidavit, the marketers argued that granting Dangote Refinery’s application would be detrimental to Nigeria’s oil sector.
They contended that the plaintiff aimed to monopolise the oil sector, allowing it sole control of supply, distribution, and pricing—an arrangement they described as a recipe for disaster.
They warned that granting Dangote Refinery a monopoly in the petroleum industry would eliminate competitive pricing, worsening the country’s already fragile economy.
The marketers argued they are fully qualified to receive import licences from NMDPRA under Section 317(9) of the PIA.
They further explained that relying solely on Dangote Refinery as the producer and supplier of petroleum products would lead to continued price increases and jeopardise energy security.
They stressed that if the refinery were to break down, the country would face a severe energy crisis due to the lack of alternative sources.
Meanwhile, in its response, NMDPRA informed the court that the current production capacity of Dangote Refinery was insufficient to meet the country’s daily petroleum consumption needs.
It said that oil import licences were issued to NNPCL and other marketers to address shortfalls in supply.
In a counter-affidavit deposed to by a Senior Regulatory Officer, Idris Musa, NMDPRA argued that Dangote Refinery was not entitled to the reliefs sought. He added that, in line with Section 317(9) of the PIA, the Authority issued import licences to companies with proven international trading records to bridge the supply gap.
Musa said the agency is mandated to promote competition and prevent monopolies, denying allegations of conspiracy against the plaintiff.
The Authority maintained that denying other entities import licences based on Dangote Refinery’s production claims would harm competition, create a monopoly, and threaten the nation’s energy security.
It added that issuing multiple licences ensures fair competition, prevents abuse of dominant positions, and avoids monopolistic practices in the oil and gas sector.
NMDPRA also noted that Dangote Refinery’s products were not restricted to the Nigerian market and could be sold globally.
It rejected claims of a “grand conspiracy” against Dangote Refinery, stating that the plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence in support of the allegation.
In a preliminary objection, NNPCL, through its legal team led by Mr Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), argued that the suit was incompetent and should be struck out for misidentification.
NNPCL urged the court to strike out its name from the suit, insisting that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi (legal right) to seek such reliefs.
The objection was supported by an affidavit dated March 18, 2025, deposed to by a litigation clerk in the law firm representing NNPCL.
The company also argued that Dangote Refinery had sued a non-existent entity.
However, Justice Inyang Ekwo dismissed the objection, ruling that the error in the name did not render the suit defective. The court held that the defendants ought to have responded to the substantive claims before raising procedural objections.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its originating summons to correct the misnomer, which the court granted on March 19.
The court had fixed September 29 for the hearing of the suit before Justice Mohammed Umar.
