• Regulator asks court to set aside order
• Case file sent to registry for reassignment to regular court
Wale Igbintade
Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has ordered that an interim order made on August 31, 2026 in the legal dispute between Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) will remain in force pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice.
Aluko also deferred arguments challenging the validity and jurisdictional basis of the August 31 order, holding that the issue would be determined when the relevant applications become ripe for hearing.
The judge gave the ruling after hearing submissions by counsel on applications seeking to discharge the interim order and on whether the matter should proceed directly to the substantive issues.
NMDPRA, through its counsel, Matthew Burkaa, SAN, had urged the court to set aside the interim order restraining the regulator from enforcing its directive suspending the loading and truck-out of propane from the Dangote refinery.
Burkaa argued that the order had significant implications for the LPG industry, particularly because propane and other gas products were distributed for domestic use across the country.
He submitted that prolonged enforcement of the order could have far-reaching consequences for the industry and urged the court to abridge time and hear NMDPRA’s application expeditiously in view of its public importance.
He further argued that the August 31 ex-parte order was made before the motion on notice was filed, stating that the court record shows that the motion on notice was filed on September 1.
He contended that the interim order was made without jurisdiction and should not be extended.
Burkaa also raised concerns over public health and safety, arguing that the products involved are highly inflammable and widely used in homes, thereby making the matter one requiring urgent judicial intervention.
However, counsel to Dangote Petroleum Refinery, Wale Akoni, SAN, urged the court to proceed directly to the substantive issues, given the urgency and public interest involved.
Akoni argued that the central question was whether NMDPRA possessed the statutory authority to regulate the refinery’s LPG operations and take enforcement measures against it.
He maintained that the concerns raised by the regulator regarding propane and LPG safety were substantive matters that should be addressed during the hearing of the main suit rather than at the interlocutory stage.
During the proceedings, counsel agreed that, if the court considered it appropriate, the application seeking to discharge the interim order and the motion for interlocutory injunction could be heard together.
Akoni, however, urged the court to disregard arguments touching on the merits of the substantive applications, insisting that the issues were not ripe for determination at that stage.
In his ruling, Aluko stated that the parties agreed that NMDPRA’s application to discharge the interim order was not yet ripe for hearing.
The judge held that the appropriate procedure was for the motion seeking to discharge the interim order and the motion for interlocutory injunction to be heard together, after which the court would deliver its ruling.
He further held that the question of whether the court had jurisdiction to grant the August 31 interim order would be determined when the relevant applications became ripe for hearing.
The judge, nevertheless, emphasised that the court retained its inherent jurisdiction and duty to preserve the res—the subject matter of the litigation—to prevent a situation in which a fait accompli could be presented to the court.
Relying on Order 26 Rules 10(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, Aluko directed that the interim order made on August 31 should continue to subsist pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice or until further order of the court.
However, the judge stated that his tenure as a vacation judge would expire within days, making it inappropriate to fix dates extending beyond the current vacation period.
He consequently directed that the case file be returned to the court registry for reassignment by the Administrative Judge to a regular court for further proceedings.
Aluko had on August 31, 2026 restrained NMDPRA from enforcing its directive suspending the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the Dangote refinery.
The court also restrained NMDPRA, its officers, agents, and representatives from entering, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising, sanctioning or otherwise interfering with the refinery’s operations at the Lekki Free Zone pending the determination of Dangote’s motion on notice.
The interim injunction followed an ex-parte application filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1174/2026.
The refinery is challenging NMDPRA’s August 24, 2026 directive suspending the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from its facilities.