Dangote Refinery Drops N100 Billion Lawsuit Against NNPCL and Other Fuel Importers

Dangote Refinery has withdrawn its lawsuit against Nigeria’s petroleum regulator and several fuel importers, including the state-owned NNPC Ltd.

Africa’s largest refinery had initially filed the suit to challenge the issuance of fuel import licenses by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) to NNPC Ltd and five other companies: AYM Shafa Ltd, A.A. Rano Ltd, T. Time Petroleum Ltd, 2015 Petroleum Ltd, and Matrix Petroleum Services Ltd, Reuters reported.

In the suit, filed at Nigeria’s Federal High Court, Dangote argued that the NMDPRA was in breach of the law by continuing to grant gasoline import permits to NNPC and other traders.

According to the company, imports are only legally allowed to cover production shortfalls, a threshold it says is no longer applicable now that the refinery is operational.

The refinery had demanded 100 billion naira ($66 million) in damages, claiming that authorities continued to issue import licenses for products such as Automotive Gas Oil (diesel) and Jet A1 (aviation turbine fuel) to companies like NNPC Ltd, despite the local refining capacity.

NNPC Ltd opposed the suit through a legal filing, urging the court to dismiss the case. In addition, three of the oil marketers, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, represented by senior advocate Ahmed Raji (SAN), also urged the court to dismiss the suit.

In their joint counter-affidavit, the marketers argued that granting Dangote Refinery’s application would be detrimental to Nigeria’s oil sector.

However, in March, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed, allowing Dangote’s suit to proceed.

Despite the court’s green light, Dangote Refinery has now withdrawn the case.

In a notice of discontinuance filed on Monday at the Federal High Court in Abuja, the company’s lawyer, Ogwu Onoja, wrote: “Take notice that the plaintiff herein discontinues this suit against the defendants forthwith.” No reason was given for the withdrawal. No explanation was given for the decision.

Although the case has been withdrawn, the court is still expected to convene on September 29, at which point the defendants may seek to recover legal costs or allow the matter to be struck out without penalty.