The Federal High Court Lagos Division, has restrained the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) from shutting down or interfering with the operations of Dangote Petroleum Refinery under the guise of carrying out regulatory or oversight functions.
Justice Akintayo Aluko issued the order on Monday while ruling on a motion ex parte in suit No. FHC/L/CS/1174/26, filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery through its legal team led by Olawale Akoni, SAN.
The court order followed a legal challenge by the refinery against an August 24, 2026 directive issued by the NMDPRA, which purportedly suspended the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the facility.
In its application, Dangote Petroleum Refinery asked the court to restrain the NMDPRA, its officers, agents, representatives and other persons acting under its authority from enforcing or implementing the directive contained in the August 24 letter.
The refinery also sought an interim injunction preventing the agency and its representatives from entering, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising or otherwise interfering with its refinery, petrochemical, terminal, storage, blending, loading and truck-out facilities.
The application was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit sworn to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6.
In his ruling, Justice Aluko said the materials presented before the court raised serious questions about the extent of NMDPRA’s regulatory powers over operations within free zones.
The judge noted that Dangote’s position was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory and oversight authority capable of affecting operations within free zones, including the Dangote Industrial Free Zone.
Justice Aluko also referred to a March 2, 2026 letter from the Attorney-General of the Federation, which, according to the court, stated that NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory or oversight functions over operations within free zones.
The judge contrasted the position contained in that letter with the NMDPRA’s August 24 directive.
Justice Aluko said the issues raised in the refinery’s affidavit disclosed serious questions that required determination in the substantive proceedings.
He also found that the circumstances surrounding the NMDPRA directive warranted urgent judicial intervention.
According to the judge, the purpose of the interim order was to preserve the subject matter of the dispute until the court could hear and determine the motion on notice.
He noted that courts have an inherent duty to preserve the subject matter of litigation and prevent it from being destroyed, altered or otherwise affected before the substantive application is determined.
The court held that Dangote Petroleum Refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction.
Justice Aluko also noted that the refinery had undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently determined that the order should not have been granted.
The judge consequently granted the application in terms of the reliefs sought and directed Dangote Petroleum Refinery to file a formal undertaking as to damages.
The order and the court notice are to be served on the NMDPRA.
Justice Aluko adjourned the case to September 9, 2026, for the hearing of the motion on notice.
