In a recent legal showdown, the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered a significant ruling concerning the Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals' ₦100 billion import license suit against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL). Justice Inyang Ekwo presided over the case, ultimately striking out the NNPCL's preliminary objection and paving the way for Dangote Refinery to amend its suit.

The crux of the matter revolved around the competence of the NNPCL's objection to Dangote Refinery's suit. Justice Ekwo pointed out that the NNPCL failed to file a counter affidavit, a critical component in challenging the suit's validity. According to established legal procedures, particularly Order 16 of the Federal High Court rules, a preliminary objection without a corresponding counter affidavit is deemed incompetent. The judge emphasized that when jurisdiction is contested, the court reserves the right to address it during the final judgment.

Furthermore, Justice Ekwo addressed Dangote Refinery's application to amend its suit, specifically to correct the name of the NNPCL. He granted the application, stating that such amendments are permissible, especially when they involve correcting a misnomer. The judge reasoned that the NNPCL would not suffer any prejudice if the amendment was allowed.

In a detailed explanation, Justice Ekwo distinguished between 'demurrer proceedings' and 'proceedings in lieu of demurrer,' clarifying that a statement of defense is essential for raising preliminary issues in the latter. He noted that the NNPCL's attempt to challenge the court's jurisdiction without adhering to Order 29 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules (FHCCPR) 2019 rendered its objection incompetent.

The court also dismissed an application by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to join the suit as a defendant, deeming the commission irrelevant to the issues at hand.

The legal battle originated from Dangote Refinery's challenge to import licenses issued by the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) to the NNPCL and five other companies. Dangote Refinery sought to nullify these licenses, arguing that they violated the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). The refinery claimed that import licenses should only be issued in cases of petroleum product shortfall and demanded ₦100 billion in damages.

The NNPCL, in its defense, argued that the suit was premature and lacked a cause of action. They contended that the court lacked jurisdiction, pointing out that Dangote Refinery had sued a non-existent entity, referring to the 'Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPC).'

However, the NMDPRA defended its decision to issue import licenses, citing the need to bridge product shortfalls and promote competition in the oil and gas sector. They argued that Dangote Refinery's current production capacity was insufficient to meet national demand.

Oil marketers, including AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, jointly opposed Dangote Refinery's application, cautioning against the dangers of monopolizing the oil sector. They argued that Dangote Refinery's production was inadequate to meet the daily consumption needs of Nigerians.

The court has adjourned the matter until May 6 for further mention, setting the stage for the next phase of this high-stakes legal battle.