Federal High Court in Abuja has shifted the hearing of the ₦100 billion lawsuit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and several oil marketers to November 5, 2025.
The case, which centers on a dispute over the issuance of petroleum import licences, was slated for hearing on Wednesday but could not proceed due to the absence of the presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Umar, who was reportedly sitting at the court’s Enugu Division.
With the judge unavailable, the court officially adjourned the matter to the new date for hearing.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Justice Umar had earlier, on July 10, directed all parties to regularize their filings in preparation for the substantive hearing and instructed that hearing notices be served on any absent defendants.
The lawsuit was initially handled by Justice Inyang Ekwo, but it started afresh—de novo—after being reassigned to Justice Umar.
Parties Involved in the Case
Dangote Refinery dragged the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and the NNPCL to court as the first and second defendants. Also listed as defendants are AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited.
Through its counsel, Ogwu Onoja (SAN), the refinery is seeking an order nullifying import licences allegedly issued by the NMDPRA to the NNPCL and five other companies for bringing refined petroleum products into the country.
Dangote contends that by issuing these licences, the NMDPRA violated Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), which permit such authorizations only when there is a verified shortfall in domestic petroleum supply.
The company is also demanding ₦100 billion in damages from the regulatory agency for allegedly continuing to grant import approvals that undermine local refining capacity.
NNPCL and NMDPRA Defend Their Actions
In its preliminary objection, the NNPCL asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing it was “incompetent and premature.” The company maintained that no valid cause of action had been established against it and that the court “lacks jurisdiction to hear this suit.”
An affidavit filed by Isiaka Popoola, a clerk at Afe Babalola & Co, claimed that the refinery sued a non-existent entity.
> “A simple search on the CAC website shows that there is no entity called ‘Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL),’” Popoola stated.
He urged the court to strike out the case on that basis.
The NMDPRA, through a counter-affidavit sworn by Idris Musa, a Senior Regulatory Officer, insisted that the suit was “misconceived, unmeritorious, and incompetent.”
Musa explained that the refinery’s production level was still below the national demand for petroleum products.
He noted that the agency’s decision to issue import licences was consistent with Section 317(9) of the PIA, as it aimed to “bridge product shortfalls” and promote competition while preventing monopoly in the downstream sector.
He also dismissed allegations of a “grand conspiracy” against Dangote Refinery as “unfounded and unsupported by any evidence.”
Oil Marketers Warn Against Monopoly
Three of the oil marketers—AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited—submitted a joint counter-affidavit, warning that granting Dangote’s prayers could destabilize the petroleum market.
They argued that any attempt to give the refinery a monopoly in fuel supply “would spell disaster for the nation’s oil sector,” stressing that Dangote had yet to meet Nigeria’s daily consumption needs.
Earlier Court Rulings
Justice Inyang Ekwo, who previously handled the case, had on March 18 dismissed NNPCL’s preliminary objection, describing it as “incompetent.”
The judge ruled that the NNPCL should have filed a proper defence before raising its objection and granted Dangote’s request to amend its originating summons to reflect the correct name of the NNPCL.
Justice Ekwo also struck out a motion filed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) seeking to join the case, calling the agency “a meddlesome interloper.”
NAN
