Court dismisses Dangote’s N100bn lawsuit against NNPCL over oil import licenses

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed the N100 billion lawsuit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and other defendants in a dispute over oil import licenses.

Justice Mohammed Umar made the ruling on Wednesday after Dangote’s counsel, C.O. Adegbe, informed the court that the plaintiff had decided to withdraw the case. The lawsuit, initially assigned to Justice Inyang Ekwo, was heard afresh after being reassigned to Justice Umar.

In the suit, Dangote Refinery had named the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and NNPCL as the first and second defendants, respectively.

The refinery also listed five other companies AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited—as defendants.

Dangote Refinery sought the court’s intervention to nullify import licenses issued by NMDPRA to NNPCL and the other companies for importing refined petroleum products.

Read also: Dangote Refinery guarantees consistent PMS, diesel supply

The refinery also sought N100 billion in damages, accusing NMDPRA of improperly continuing to grant these import licenses.

During the proceedings, Adegbe informed the court that despite the scheduled hearing, Dangote had filed a notice of discontinuance on July 28 and had decided to withdraw the suit. She requested the court to strike out the case.

The defense lawyers did not oppose the withdrawal but requested that the case be dismissed rather than merely struck out. I.B. Ahmad, representing NMDPRA, argued that, since the case had progressed to the point of pleadings being exchanged, it would be appropriate for the court to dismiss the case entirely.

Chris Ekemezie, counsel for the third, fourth, and seventh defendants (AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited), also requested the court to dismiss the suit.

He argued that Dangote’s actions appeared to be an attempt to reassess its case after recognizing weaknesses in its arguments, suggesting the plaintiff might return with a revised claim.

Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, representing the fifth and sixth defendants (T. Time Petroleum Limited and 2015 Petroleum Limited), aligned himself with the other defense lawyers’ request for dismissal but did not oppose the withdrawal application.

Adegbe countered the defense’s request for dismissal, arguing that there had been prior discussions between her client and the defendants about simply striking out the matter.

In his ruling, Justice Umar dismissed the case without any costs.

He noted that the parties had exchanged their pleadings and were ready for the hearing, but the plaintiff had chosen to withdraw the case at that stage.

While the case could have been struck out or dismissed with costs, Justice Umar ruled that, since no such request had been made, the suit was dismissed without costs.

The case stemmed from Dangote Refinery’s allegations that NMDPRA violated the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by issuing import licenses for petroleum products where no product shortfall existed.

The refinery contended that licenses should only be granted when there is a national shortage of petroleum products.

NNPCL argued that the case was premature and lacked merit, challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

They claimed the refinery had incorrectly named them in the suit, noting that no entity called “Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited” existed, as shown by a search of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) website.

Similarly, NMDPRA defended its actions, explaining that Dangote Refinery’s production capacity had not yet met national demand for petroleum products.

The agency emphasized that it issued import licenses to companies with strong international product trading records to address shortfalls and promote competition in the sector. NMDPRA denied any wrongdoing or conspiracy against Dangote Refinery.

The five oil marketing companies named as defendants argued that granting Dangote’s request would destabilize the nation’s oil sector.

They accused Dangote of attempting to monopolize the industry, which they claimed would harm the country. They also pointed out that Dangote had not produced enough petroleum products to meet the country’s daily consumption needs.

In March 2024, Justice Ekwo had dismissed NNPCL’s objection to the suit, ruling that the challenge was incompetent and should have been filed as a counter affidavit. The judge also allowed Dangote to amend its originating motion to correct the name of NNPCL.

Justice Ekwo dismissed a motion filed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to join the case, ruling that the agency was an unnecessary party.