The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed Dangote Refinery’s case against NMDPRA and six others until January 30, 2025. The postponement followed an application by the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim (SAN), to amend the summons. This suit challenges the issuance of oil import licenses to oil marketers by the NMDPRA.
Dangote Refinery seeks to stop oil import licenses issued to NNPCL and other marketers in a legal action. The refinery argues that these licenses violate the Petroleum Industry Act, as they should only be granted during local supply shortages. The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, involves claims of illegal issuance of these licenses.
Legal Arguments and Claims of Unfair Practices
Dangote Refinery claims that NMDPRA issued import licenses to NNPCL and others without proof of local supply shortages. The refinery argues this undermines the PIA’s goal to promote local refinery production and seeks N100 billion in damages. Dangote Refinery alleges harm from the ongoing issuance of these import licenses.
In response, AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano, and Matrix Petroleum filed a counter-affidavit defending the import licenses’ legality under the PIA. The marketers argue that Dangote Refinery lacks sufficient capacity to meet national petroleum needs and that the licenses were issued correctly. They warn that granting Dangote Refinery monopolistic control could destabilize the economy, raise prices, and reduce competition.
Marketers Warn of Negative Economic Consequences
The counter-affidavit from the oil marketers highlights concerns over the potential consequences of giving Dangote Refinery exclusive control over Nigeria’s petroleum sector. They caution that such a move could lead to economic instability, higher fuel prices, and an overreliance on a single refinery. They emphasize that any disruption in Dangote Refinery’s operations could severely impact supply and pricing across the country, exacerbating existing challenges.
Court Hearing Delays Due to Service Issues
During the hearing, Dangote Refinery’s counsel, George Ibrahim, explained that serving the amended summons caused a delay. He confirmed that the necessary documents were not served, hindering progress on settlement talks. Defendants’ counsel agreed, requesting proper service before moving forward.
NNPCL’s lawyer, Ademola Abimbola, stated that the amended summons was only served shortly before the hearing. He highlighted that Dangote Refinery amended the summons after objections regarding NNPCL’s incorrect name. Justice Inyang Ekwo expressed disappointment, urging Dangote Refinery’s counsel to prepare the case properly before the next adjournment.
Next Steps in the Legal Proceedings
With the case now adjourned to January 30, 2025, the court has given both parties time to complete the necessary filings and service processes. Justice Ekwo emphasized the importance of resolving the procedural issues before the case can proceed, making it clear that delays in proper service are hindering the progress of the suit. A party seeking to be joined in the matter was also asked to stand down until these issues are addressed.
As the legal battle continues, the outcomes could have significant implications for the Nigerian petroleum sector and the future of local refineries in the country.
Follow us on Socials:
Facebook
Twitter