Dangote, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, is seeking to halt the issuance of oil import licences to some oil marketers.
Cited as defendants in the suit are the NMDPRA (1st defendant), Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) 2nd defendant; 3rd to 7th defendants are AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited.
Dangote 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.
According to the plaintiff, such licenses should only be issued in circumstances where there is a petroleum product shortfall.
It also 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.
At Monday’s proceedings, Dangote’s counsel, Ibrahim, informed the court that the matter was fixed for report of settlement or report of service.
He however, said the plaintiff had been unable to take step to effect service of the processes and that issues of reconciliation had also not been looked into because of a motion filed to amend the originating summons due to the error discovered in the earlier application.
NMDPRA’s counsel, 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.
Abimbola said Dangote Refinery served them with the amended originating summons because they raised objection that the 2nd defendant should not have been a party in the suit since its registered name was not what it was sued with.
Pointing out that the plaintiff amended the suit because it was already in the media, the NNPCL’s lawyer said the application would be studied for appropriate response.
But 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 dated and filed Dec. 13, 2024, insisted that the current production of Dangote Refinery is yet to meet the national daily petroleum products sufficiency requirement.
Musa said that 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, the NMDPRA said it is mandated to promote competition and prevent abuse of dominant market positions and unhealthy monopolies in the oil and gas sector.
NMDPRA denied 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.”
In its preliminary objection, NNPCL also prayed the court to strike out the case for being incompetent.
In a joint counter affidavit, the oil marketers -AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, told the court that granting Dangote’s application would spell doom for the country’s oil sector.
The marketers declared that the plan to monopolise the oil sector is a recipe for disaster in the country.
They stated that Dangote did not produce adequate petroleum products for the daily consumption of Nigerians.