Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after counsel to Dangote Refinery, George Ibrahim, SAN, told the court that they were yet to file their response to the NNPCL’s objection.

When the matter was called, Ibrahim informed the court that the matter was slated for hearing of their motion for amendment of the originating summons.

He said the application, dated Nov. 25, sought one relief.

The lawyer said the application sought an order granting leave to amend the name of the 2nd defendant in the suit from Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited to Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited.

He said though NNPCL had served them with a counter affidavit opposing the motion for amendment, the lawyer said they responded on points of law.

“We urge your lordship to discountenance the submission of 2nd defendant,” he said, citing a previous court decision to back his argument.

But NNPCL’s lawyer, Ademola Abimbola, SAN, disagreed with Ibrahim’s submission.

Abimbola argued that besides that Dangote had not furnished them with the previous court judgment cited by their lawyer, he said they filed a counter affidavit of seven paragraphs on Jan. 24 in opposition to the application.

“We rely on all the said paragraphs and Exhibit A, including a written address in urging my lord to dismiss the plaintiff’s application,” he said.

The lawyer said their contention in the case was that the court cannot grant the application to amend because before they filed it, they had already filed their preliminary objection, seeking the dismissal of the suit.

He argued that the Supreme Court had made a decision on this as a classic example of an application that ought to be dismissed because until their preliminary objection is determined, the motion to amend cannot be determined.

Abimbola said if the motion to amend is determined , it will overreach their preliminary objection.

When Justice Ekwo then asked Abimbola if he was ready to move their preliminary objection, the lawyer responded in the affirmative.

But Ibrahim quickly interjected, saying they were yet to file their response to the NNPCL’s objection.

He, however, sought a two-hour stand-down to enable him file a formal application.

Responding, Abimbola submitted that instead of Dangote to respond to their preliminary objection, the refinery was busy filing a motion to amend their originating summons.

After listening to their arguments, Justice Ekwo adjourned until Feb. 5 for hearing of the NNPCL’s objection.

The judge, who ordered Dangote Refinery to file its response within two days of the order, directed the NNPCL to also file its response within a day upon being served if there is any need.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) observes that while Matthew Bukar, SAN, appeared for the 1st defendant; Ahmed Raji, SAN, represented the 3rd, 4th and 7th defendants; while Divine Okoro appeared for 5th and 6th defendants respectively.

Meanwhile, Olanrewaju Oshinaike, informed the court that he appeared for Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) as a party seeking to be joined in the suit.

NAN reports that Dangote Refinery had sued the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) as 1st and 2nd defendants.

Also joined in the suit are AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited.

The oil company, through its lawyer, Ogwu Onoja, SAN, prayed the court to nullify import licences issued by NMDPRA to the NNPCL and the five other companies for the purpose of importing refined petroleum products.

The company (plaintiff) 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.

It stated that such licenses should only be issued in circumstances where there is a petroleum product shortfall.

It equally sought a 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.

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, said the current production of Dangote Refinery is yet to meet the national daily petroleum products sufficiency requirement.

He said 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, he said the agency is also mandated to promote competition and prevent abuse of dominant market positions and unhealthy monopoly in the oil and gas sector.

He denied the allegation that NMDPRA is 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.”

The NNPCL, in its preliminary objection dated and filed Nov. 15, 2024, also prayed the court to strike out the case for being incompetent.

The NNPCL argued that the suit was premature and it disclosed no cause of action against it.

“This honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this suit,” the NNPCL said.

In the affidavit in support of the application deposed to by Isiaka Popoola, a clerk in the law firm of Afe Babalola & Co, counsel to the NNPCL, he said one of their lawyers, Esther Longe who perused Dangote’s originating summons, affidavit and written address told him that an examination of the processes showed that NNPC as sued by the refinery was non-existent entity.

Popoola averred that the court lacked jurisdiction over the 2nd defendant sued as Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL).

“A simple search on the CAC website shows that there is no entity called “Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPC).”

According to Popoola, the 2nd defendant/objector is not one and the same with the 2nd defendant sued by the plaintiff.

He urged the court to dismiss the suit.

Also, the oil marketers, in a joint counter affidavit filed on Nov. 5, 2024, told the court that granting Dangote’s application would spell doom for the country’s oil sector.

According to them, the plan to monopolise the oil sector is a recipe for disaster in the country.

The three marketers; AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, in their response, said the plaintiff did not produce adequate petroleum products for the daily consumption of Nigerians.

Besides, they argued that there was nothing placed before the court to prove the contrary.(NAN)