Court Strikes Out NNPCL’s Bid To Dismiss Dangote Refinery’s N100b Import License Suit

The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s (NNPCL) preliminary objection challenging the competence of the N100 billion import license suit instituted by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE.

Justice Inyang Ekwo passed the ruling after hearing oral submissions from the legal teams of Dangote Refinery, NNPCL, and other parties involved.

Nairametrics previously reported that, during court proceedings on January 30, 2025, NNPCL’s lawyer, Ademola Abimbola, SAN, opposed the refinery’s request to amend its court filings.

Brief Facts of the Case

Nairametrics previously reported that Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE filed a suit seeking to void import licenses issued to NNPCL, Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and four other companies for importing refined petroleum products.

The refinery argues that these products are already being produced domestically without shortfalls.

In suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, Nairametrics reported that Dangote Refinery is seeking N100 billion in damages against the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) for allegedly continuing to issue import licenses to NNPCL, Matrix, and other companies to import petroleum products such as Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) and Jet Fuel (aviation turbine fuel) into Nigeria.

Dangote Refinery’s suit claims that the continued importation of petroleum products persists “despite the production of AGO and Jet-A1 that exceeds the current daily consumption of petroleum products in Nigeria by the Dangote Refinery.”

The defendants in the case include NMDPRA, NNPCL, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited.

In its originating summons dated September 6, 2024, seen by Nairametrics, the plaintiff’s lawyer, George Ibrahim, SAN, argued that NMDPRA allegedly violated Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by issuing import licenses for petroleum products, which should only be granted when there is a proven shortfall in supply.

However, the legal team representing Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and AYM Shafa Limited—led by Ahmed Raji, SAN—filed a motion urging the court to dismiss the suit.

They argued that only NMDPRA and NNPCL are legally empowered to determine petroleum product shortfalls in Nigeria, not Dangote Refinery.

Meanwhile, NNPCL’s counsel, Ademola Abimbola, SAN, filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the plaintiff erroneously sued “Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation,” a non-existent entity, instead of the correctly registered “Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.”

Abimbola also contended that until NMDPRA decides to implement the “Backward Integration Policy” in the downstream petroleum sector, it is not obligated to restrict the issuance of petroleum product import licenses solely to cover shortfalls in local refinery production.

The Backward Integration Policy, a provision in the PIA, encourages investment in local refining facilities by granting import licenses for refined products only to companies involved in domestic refining.

NNPCL urged the court to hold that implementing a Backward Integration Policy in the downstream petroleum sector is a prerequisite before Dangote Refinery can challenge NMDPRA’s continued issuance of import licenses to the second to seventh defendants.

Abimbola further urged the court to rule that Dangote Refinery has no legal standing to institute this suit.

In its counter-affidavit and written address filed on Friday, and seen by Nairametrics, George Ibrahim argued that a close examination of the originating summons, affidavit, and attached documents clearly shows that the plaintiff’s grievance concerns the “flagrant disobedience of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by a statutory body created to implement the Act.”

He urged the court to reject NNPCL’s claim that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the implementation of a Backward Integration Policy by NMDPRA.

He contended that a policy created by a government institution cannot override the provisions of an Act.
Ibrahim further submitted that NNPCL has no legal basis to argue that “the plaintiff failed to show the implementation of a Backward Integration Policy by NMDPRA” since it does not represent NMDPRA in this matter.

“The NNPCL is merely a busybody and a meddlesome interloper, and its arguments on this issue should be disregarded,” he submitted.

At the hearing in February 2025, Abimbola urged the judge to affirm his objection and strike out the refinery’s suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Alternatively, Abimbola asked the court to strike out NNPCL’s name from the case, arguing that it discloses no cause of action.

On his part, Ibrahim asked the court to dismiss NNPCL’s objection and allow the amendment of his originating processes and subsequent determination of his case.

After hearing submissions from both sides, the judge fixed today for ruling.