The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, on Wednesday, dismissed the N100 billion suit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE against Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and its co-defendants over an oil import licence dispute.
Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the suit following an oral application by the defence lawyers after counsel who appeared for Dangote, C.O. Adegbe, withdrew the suit.
The suit, which was formerly before Justice Inyang Ekwo, began de novo (afresh) following its reassignment to Mr Umar.
Dangote Refinery had sued the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) as the first and second 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 as third to seventh defendants, respectively.
The oil company, through its lawyer, Ogwu Onoja (SAN), had 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.
It equally sought 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.
Upon the resumed hearing in the matter on Wednesday, Ms Adegbe informed the court that, although the matter was scheduled for hearing, the plaintiff (Dangote) had filed a notice of discontinuance dated July 28.
She stated that the refinery had decided to withdraw the case and requested that the court strike it out.
Responding, I.B. Ahmad, who appeared for NMDPRA, did not oppose Ms Adegbe’s application. She acknowledged the receipt of the notice of discontinuance, prayed the court not to strike the case out, but to dismiss it in its entirety.
Also, Chris Ekemezie, who represented the third, fourth, and seventh defendants (AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited), urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Mr Ekemezie, citing previous Supreme Court and Appeal Court cases, said that where such an application is made, the proper course of action is to dismiss it.
Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN), counsel for the fifth and sixth (T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited), also did not oppose the application for withdrawal of the suit.
He, however, aligned himself with the submissions of the other defence lawyers.
But Ms Adegbe disagreed with the application by the defence for the dismissal of the case.
She based her argument on the prior conversation her client had with the defendants that the matter should be struck out.
Mr Umar, consequently, dismissed the suit without any cost.
“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 costs. But since it is not asked for, the matter is hereby dismissed without cost,” he ruled.
Dangote Refinery had prayed the court to declare that NMDPRA was in violation of Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by issuing licences for the importation of petroleum products.
It stated that such licences should only be issued in circumstances where there is a petroleum product shortfall.
But NNPCL, in its preliminary objection, prayed the court to strike out the case for being incompetent. It argued that the suit was premature and that it disclosed no cause of action against it.
(NAN)
Discussion about this post