A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a N100 billion lawsuit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and others over disputed oil import licences. The dismissal followed Dangote's withdrawal of the suit, though defendants pushed for outright dismissal. Justice Mohammed Umar ruled in favour of dismissal without costs.
On Wednesday, Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a N100 billion suit brought by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE. The case targeted the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) as the first defendant and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) as the second. Additional defendants included AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, listed as the third through seventh defendants.
The refinery, represented by counsel Ogwu Onoja, SAN, had sought to nullify import licences issued by the NMDPRA to the NNPCL and the five other companies for importing refined petroleum products. It also demanded N100 billion in damages from the NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue such licences.
Originally assigned to Justice Inyang Ekwo, the suit was reassigned to Justice Umar and began de novo. During the resumed hearing, Dangote's counsel, C.O. Adegbe, informed the court of a notice of discontinuance dated July 28, urging the case be struck out after resolution with the defendants.
I.B. Ahmad, representing the NMDPRA, did not oppose the withdrawal but requested full dismissal. Chris Ekemezie, for the third, fourth, and seventh defendants, supported dismissal, citing Supreme Court and Appeal Court precedents. He argued that since the suit was commenced by originating summons, issues had been joined, and pleadings exchanged, dismissal was appropriate to prevent the plaintiff from refiling a revised case. Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, for the fifth and sixth defendants, aligned with this position.
Adegbe contested the dismissal request, referencing prior discussions for striking out. Justice Umar ruled: "The case on record is that parties have joined issues and what remains is for parties to adopt their processes. It is at this stage that the plaintiff came for a withdrawal. In fact, the matter is deemed for dismissal and cost. But since it is not asked for, the matter is hereby dismissed without cost."