Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, dismissed the N100 billion suit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and its co-defendants over an oil import licence dispute.
The court 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 Justice Umar.
Dangote Refinery had sued the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) as 1st and 2nd defendants.
Also joined in the suit were AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited as 3rd to 7th defendants respectively.
The oil company, through its lawyer, Ogwu Onoja , had prayed the court to nullify import licences issued by the 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 the NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licences to the NNPCL and the five companies for importing petroleum products, among other reliefs.
Upon the resumed hearing in the matter on Wednesday, Adegbe informed the court that though the matter was scheduled for hearing, the plaintiff (Dangote) had filed a notice of discontinuance dated 28 July.
She said the refinery had resolved to withdraw the case and urged the court to strike it out.
Responding, I.B. Ahmad, who appeared for the NMDPRA, did not oppose Adegbe’s application.
The lawyer, who acknowledged 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 3rd, 4th and 7th defendants (AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited), urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Ekemezie, who cited previous Supreme Court and Appeal Court cases, said where such an application is made, the proper thing to do is to dismiss it.
According to him, this is a matter that was commenced by originating summons and issues have been joined and pleadings exchanged, and the honourable court had adjourned to today for hearing of the processes filed.
‘It seems what the plaintiff (Dangote) plans to do is to go and panel-beat its case and come back, after seeing that its case is bad.
‘So, we urge my lord to dismiss it with substantive cost’, he said.
Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, counsel for the 5th and 6th defendants (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 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.
Justice 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 cost.
‘But since it is not asked for, the matter is hereby dismissed without cost’, he ruled.
