The delay by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals to serve its amended originating summons on Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and six other defendants on Monday, stalled the hearing of its suit seeking to stop issuance of oil import licenses to some oil marketing companies.
Dangote Refinery had sued NMDPRA, Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL), AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited as 1st to 7th defendants respectively in the originating summons, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024 dated September 6, 2024.
The oil company, through its lawyer, Ogwu Onoja, SAN, prayed the court to nullify import licences issued by NMDPRA to the NNPCL and the five other companies to import refined petroleum products.
The company (plaintiff) also prayed the court to declare that NMDPRA was in violation of Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by issuing licenses for the importation of petroleum products, stating that, such licenses should only be issued in circumstances where there is a petroleum product shortfall.
It equally sought N100 billion in damages against NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licences to NNPCL and the five companies for importing petroleum products, among other reliefs.
When the matter was called, George Ibrahim, SAN who appeared for the plaintiff (Dangote), informed the court that the matter was fixed for report of settlement or report of service.
Ibrahim, however, said they had been unable to take steps to effect service of the processes and that issues of reconciliation had also not been looked into because of a motion filed to amend their originating summons due to the error discovered in the earlier application.
He said the application was dated November 25, 2024, and filed on November 28, 2024.
Counsel to NMDPRA, Mathew Bukar, SAN; lawyer to the 3rd, 4th, and 7th defendants (AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano Limited and Matrix Limited), Ahmed Raji, SAN, and that of 5th and 6th defendants (T. Time Petroleum and 2015 Petroleum Limited), Divine Oguru, told the court that they were yet to be served with the plaintiff’s application.
But Ademola Abimbola, who appeared for NNPCL (2nd defendant), said he was only served with the application at about 9 am before the court began sitting.
Abimbola said Dangote Refinery served them with the amended originating summons because they objected that the 2nd defendant should not have been a party in the suit since its registered name was not what it was sued with.
The lawyer, who said the plaintiff amended the suit because it was already in the media, said the application would be studied for appropriate response.
The trial Judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo told lawyer to Dangote that, he, “have not been able to position this matter to be heard and that is the cause of the adjournment”.
The judge, who advised a counsel representing the party seeking to be joined, Olanrewaju Oshinaike, to wait until the processes were regularised, adjourned the matter till january 30 for mention.
NMDPRA, in its counter affidavit deposed to by Idris Musa, a Senior Regulatory Officer in the office, prayed the court to dismiss the suit as it was misconceived, unmeritorious, and incompetent.
Musa argued that Dangote Refinery is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
The official, in the application filed December 13, 2024, said the current production of Dangote Refinery is yet to meet the national daily petroleum products sufficiency requirement.
He said, based on this and in compliance with Section 317 [9] of the PIA (Petroleum Industry Act), NMDPRA issued licences to import petroleum products to bridge product shortfalls to companies with good track records of international products trading.
Besides, he said the agency is also mandated to promote competition and prevent abuse of dominant market positions and unhealthy monopolies in the oil and gas sector.
He denied the allegation that NMDPRA is partaking in any purported “grand conspiracy and concerted efforts” against the refinery, describing it as “an allegation for which the plaintiff has provided no facts or evidence in support.”
