By TAIYE AGBAJE

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday fixed March 18 for ruling on the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL)?s preliminary objection against a suit filed by the Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE over oil import licence dispute.

Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after counsel to the NNPCL,, Ademola Abimbola, SAN, and lawyer to Dangote Refinery, John Ibrahim, SAN, presented their arguments and?adopted their processes for and against the suit.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Ekwo had, on Thursday, fixed today for the hearing of the NNPCL?s preliminary objection after Ibrahim told the court that they were yet to file their response to the application.

Upon resumed hearing on Wednesday, Abimbola informed the court that the matter was scheduled for hearing of their objection and he said they were ready to proceed.

Ibrahim, who said they had filed their counter affidavit in opposition to the objection, said he was ready to move their application too.

Moving the application, Abimbola said their notice of preliminary objection, dated and filed on Nov. 15, 2024, sought an order striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction or in the alternative, an order striking out the name of the company from the suit.

He said an affidavit and a written address were in support of the application.

The lawyer said upon receipt of the refinery?s counter affidavit, they filed a further affidavit on Feb. 3 in response and a reply on points of law.

He prayed the court to either strike out the suit or the name of the NNPCL from the suit.

Responding, Ibrahim said a five-paragraph counter affidavit, dated Jan. 31, was filed with a written address.

He adopted the processes and urged the court to dismiss the NNPCL?s preliminary objection for being unnecessary.

After listening to the parties, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until March 18 for ruling.

NAN observes that while Emeka Akabuogu appeared for the 1st defendant; Ahmed Raji, SAN, represented the 3rd, 4th and 7th defendants; while Divine Oguru appeared for 5th and 6th defendants respectively.

Meanwhile, Olanrewaju Oshinaike appeared for a party seeking to be joined (Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission) 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 an? 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.

The NNPCL, In its preliminary objection, 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 strike out the suit.

Also, the 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 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)

Update news