Wale Igbintade
A Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) from enforcing its directive suspending the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the Dangote Petroleum Refinery.
Justice Akintayo Aluko issued the interim injunction on Monday in a fresh legal battle between the refinery and the petroleum regulator over NMDPRA’s regulatory powers within the free zone where the refinery operates.
The court also restrained NMDPRA, its officers, agents and representatives from entering, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising, sanctioning or otherwise interfering with Dangote Refinery’s operations at the Lekki Free Zone pending the determination of the refinery’s motion on notice.
The order followed an ex-parte application filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE in suit No. FHC/L/CS/1174/2026.
The refinery is challenging NMDPRA’s August 24, 2026 directive suspending the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from its facilities.
Dangote’s application was argued by a legal team led by Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Olawale Akoni and Abimbola Akeredolu.
Moving the application, Akeredolu urged the court to grant the reliefs sought, relying on a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6.
In his ruling, Justice Aluko held that the materials placed before the court raised serious issues requiring determination, particularly whether NMDPRA possesses regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones.
The judge noted that Dangote’s case was that NMDPRA lacked regulatory powers capable of affecting operations within free zones, including the Dangote Industrial Free Zone.
Justice Aluko also referred to a March 2, 2026 letter written by the Attorney-General of the Federation, which, according to the judge, “clearly stated” that NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.
The judge said he had also considered NMDPRA’s August 24 letter through which the regulator purported to exercise such powers.
“The important question, therefore, is whether the defendant can or should be allowed to exercise such regulatory authority pending the determination of the substantive issues before the court,” Justice Aluko held.
He said the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of Dangote’s affidavit disclosed “serious issues for determination” and demonstrated an urgent need for judicial intervention.
According to the judge, the purpose of the application was to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending the determination of the motion on notice.
“What the plaintiff has asked this court to do is to preserve the res pending the determination of the motion on notice,” he said.
Justice Aluko further held that the court had an inherent power and duty to preserve the subject matter of litigation and prevent a situation in which it could be destroyed or altered before the substantive application was determined.
The judge said Dangote had satisfied the legal conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction.
“The law is settled on the conditions which an applicant must satisfy to be entitled to an order of interim injunction. Those conditions have been considered and stated in this ruling, and I find that they have been satisfied in the present case,” he held.
The court also took note of Dangote’s undertaking to indemnify NMDPRA in damages should it subsequently be established that the interim order ought not to have been granted.
“Accordingly, I find merit in the application, and the same is hereby granted in terms of the reliefs sought,” Justice Aluko ruled.
The judge directed Dangote to file a formal undertaking as to damages and ordered that the interim order and notice of the court be served on NMDPRA.
The order effectively bars NMDPRA from implementing the August 24 directive or taking the specified enforcement measures against the refinery pending the hearing of the motion on notice.
Justice Aluko adjourned the suit till September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice.
The latest case is separate from another suit filed by Dangote Refinery challenging the issuance and renewal of fuel import licences to NNPC Limited and several petroleum marketers.
The earlier suit, marked FHC/L/CS/857/2026, came up before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke on Monday but was adjourned until October 7 following the judge’s absence due to indisposition.
Dangote is challenging the issuance and renewal of the licences, contending that they were issued in breach of an earlier order made by the court on April 29 directing the parties to maintain the status quo as it existed on April 2, 2026.
The refinery is seeking, among other reliefs, an order setting aside the licences and restraining the Attorney-General of the Federation and relevant regulatory agencies from issuing or renewing import licences for Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) and Jet A1 pending the determination of the suit.
Dangote contended that continued issuance of the licences undermines domestic refining and violates Section 317(9) of the Petroleum Industry Act, which it interprets as permitting petroleum imports only where there is a proven shortfall in domestic supply.
The refinery, which has an installed capacity of approximately 650,000 barrels per day, maintains that it has sufficient capacity to meet Nigeria’s domestic refined petroleum product requirements.
It has relied on regulatory data which, according to the company, show that domestic production of petrol and diesel exceeds national consumption.
Dangote has also argued that the refinery was established to meet Nigeria’s refined petroleum requirements, generate export surpluses and support the development of a major market for Nigerian crude oil.
NNPC Limited, however, has urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the Petroleum Industry Act and the Federal Government’s Backward Integration Policy do not impose a blanket prohibition on fuel imports.
The state-owned oil company maintained that petroleum imports remain permissible where necessary to guarantee national supply security.
NNPC also contended that NMDPRA acted within its statutory powers in issuing the disputed licences, arguing that the law permits the licensing of companies with local refining capacity or an established track record in petroleum trading.
It further maintained that the PIA does not prohibit fuel imports except where there is a verified domestic supply surplus, arguing that imports remain a legitimate mechanism for maintaining product availability and stabilising prices.
