The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed the ₦100 billion lawsuit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and others over the alleged unlawful issuance of oil import licenses.
Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the suit on Wednesday following an oral application by defense counsel after Dangote’s lawyer, C.O. Adegbe, informed the court that the company had decided to withdraw the case.
The case, which was initially before Justice Inyang Ekwo, had started de novo (afresh) after being reassigned to Justice Umar.
Dangote Refinery’s Legal Challenge
Dangote Refinery had sued the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and the NNPCL as the 1st and 2nd defendants. The refinery also joined five oil marketing firms: AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited as 3rd to 7th defendants, respectively.
Through its lead counsel, Ogwu Onoja, SAN, the refinery had asked the court to invalidate import licenses issued by the NMDPRA to NNPCL and the five companies, arguing that the permits contravened the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). Dangote further sought ₦100 billion in damages from NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to grant the import licenses.
Defence Lawyers Urge Dismissal, Not Withdrawal
At the resumed hearing, Adegbe told the court that although the matter was listed for hearing, the plaintiff had filed a notice of discontinuance dated 28 July and requested the case be struck out.
However, I.B. Ahmad, counsel for NMDPRA, did not oppose the withdrawal but prayed the court to dismiss the matter entirely rather than strike it out.
Chris Ekemezie, counsel representing the 3rd, 4th, and 7th defendants (AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano, and Matrix Petroleum), also urged the court to dismiss the suit. He cited previous Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions, arguing that “where such an application is made, the proper thing to be done is to dismiss it.”
Ekemezie added “It seems what the plaintiff (Dangote) plans to do is to go and panel-beat his case and come back after seeing that its case is bad. So we urge my lord to dismiss it with substantive cost.”
Similarly, Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, counsel for the 5th and 6th defendants (T. Time Petroleum Limited and 2015 Petroleum Limited), aligned with the other defense lawyers’ arguments, although he did not oppose the withdrawal itself.
Adegbe, however, disagreed, insisting that the case should be struck out, based on prior discussions between her client and the defendants.
Court’s Decision
Justice Umar ruled in favour of dismissal without costs, stating “The case on record is that parties have joined issues, and what remains is for parties to adopt their processes. It is at this stage that the plaintiff came for a withdrawal. In fact, the matter is deemed for dismissal and cost. But since it is not asked for, the matter is hereby dismissed without cost.”
Background of the Legal Dispute
Dangote Refinery had earlier argued that the NMDPRA violated Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act by issuing import licenses for refined petroleum products when there was no proven shortfall in national supply.
The NNPCL, in its preliminary objection, urged the court to strike out the suit, describing it as “incompetent” and “premature,” and claiming that the entity sued - Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited - was “non-existent.”
In an affidavit, Isiaka Popoola, a clerk at Afe Babalola & Co. (counsel for NNPCL), stated, “A simple search on the CAC website shows that there is no entity called ‘Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPC).’”
Popoola argued that the court lacked jurisdiction since the wrong entity had been sued.
The NMDPRA also asked the court to dismiss the case, describing it as “misconceived, unmeritorious, and incompetent.” In a counter-affidavit deposed to by Idris Musa, a Senior Regulatory Officer, the agency maintained that Dangote’s refinery output was still below national demand, necessitating the issuance of import licenses under Section 317(9) of the PIA.
Musa added that NMDPRA was mandated to “promote competition and prevent the abuse of dominant market positions” in the oil and gas sector.
He dismissed claims of a “grand conspiracy” against the refinery, describing them as “allegations for which the plaintiff has provided no facts or evidence.”
In a joint counter-affidavit, AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano, and Matrix Petroleum Services argued that granting Dangote’s application would “spell doom for the country’s oil sector,” warning that any move to monopolise the market would be “a recipe for disaster.”
Previous Court Rulings
Earlier in March, Justice Inyang Ekwo had dismissed NNPCL’s preliminary objection, holding that the application was incompetent and that the company should have filed a counter-affidavit instead. He also allowed Dangote Refinery to amend its originating summons to correct NNPCL’s name, while rejecting the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission’s (FCCPC) request to join the case, describing the agency as a “meddlesome interloper.”
With Justice Umar’s latest ruling, the long-running legal battle between Dangote Refinery and Nigeria’s state oil company over import licensing has effectively come to an end, at least for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment