Court Restrains NMDPRA From Sealing, Disrupting Dangote Refinery Operations

The Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) from interfering with the operations of the Dangote Petroleum Refinery until a substantive application challenging the regulator’s directive to suspend the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the facility is decided.

Justice Akintayo Aluko issued the interim injunction on Monday while ruling on an ex-parte application marked FHC/L/CS/1174/2026, filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery Nigeria Limited through its lawyers, Olawale Akoni (SAN) and Mrs Abimbola Akeredolu (SAN).

The court order followed NMDPRA’s letter dated August 24, 2026, directing the suspension of loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the refinery.

Dangote, through its lawyers, urged the court to restrain NMDPRA, its officers, agents, representatives, or anyone acting under its authority from enforcing or acting on the directive until the hearing and final decision on its motion on notice.

The company also sought an interim injunction preventing the regulator and its agents from entering, sealing, shutting down, restricting access, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising, sanctioning, or otherwise interfering with its refinery, petrochemical, terminal, storage, blending, loading, truck-out, and related facilities within the Lekki Free Zone.

While presenting the application, Akeredolu (SAN) informed the court that it was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit sworn by Wale Aroge, along with a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6.

She urged the court to grant the reliefs sought, arguing that the circumstances justified urgent judicial intervention to preserve the subject matter of the substantive proceedings.

In his ruling, Justice Aluko noted that the materials before him raised serious issues requiring determination, especially concerning the scope of NMDPRA’s regulatory and oversight powers over activities within free zones.

The judge stated that the plaintiff’s case was that NMDPRA lacked the regulatory powers or oversight functions to affect operations within free zones, including the Dangote Industrial Free Zone.

Justice Aluko also referred to a letter dated March 2, 2026, issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation, which, according to him, stated that NMDPRA was not authorised to exercise regulatory powers or oversight over operations within free zones.

The judge pointed out that, despite the position in the Attorney-General’s letter, NMDPRA subsequently issued its August 24, 2026, letter, claiming to exercise such powers.

He identified the key issue as whether NMDPRA should be allowed to exercise the disputed regulatory authority while the substantive issues are still pending before the court.

Justice Aluko held that the depositions in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit supported the existence of serious questions requiring examination.

Regarding urgency, the judge stated that paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit demonstrated a pressing need for court intervention.

The court also affirmed that the relief sought by Dangote aimed to preserve the subject matter of the litigation until the motion on notice could be heard.

He added that courts possess the inherent power and duty to protect the subject matter of litigation and prevent it from being destroyed or altered before a final ruling.

The judge further concluded that the refinery had met the legal criteria for granting an interim injunction.

Justice Aluko noted that Dangote had agreed to compensate NMDPRA for damages if it was later proved that the interim order was wrongly granted.

Therefore, he declared: “Accordingly, I find merit in the application, and the same is hereby granted in terms of the reliefs sought.”

He ordered Dangote to submit a formal undertaking regarding damages and directed that the interim order and the court notice be served on NMDPRA.

Justice Aluko then adjourned the case to September 9, 2026, for the hearing of the motion on notice.