A Federal High Court, Lagos, has in the interim restrained the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) an agency federal government of Nigeria charged with the responsibility to regulate, monitor, supervise technical and commercial operations in the country’s midstream and downstream petroleum value chain, and others from shutting down Dangote Petroleum Refinery, under an alleged disguise of performing over-sight functions.
Justice Akintayo Aluko made the restraining order today, while granting a motion ex-parte marked FHC/L/CS/1174/26, filed and moved by lawyers to the Dangote Petroleum Refinery led by the dou of Olawale Akoni and Abimbola Akeredolu (both Senior Advocates of Nigeria).
Dangote Petroleum Refinery Nigeria Limited, through its lawyers had asked the court for “an order restraining the defendant, whether by itself, officers, servants, agents, partners, representatives, privies, or any person acting under its authority or direction, from enforcing, implementing, giving full effect to, or taking any steps or further steps pursuant to the directive contained in its letter dated 24th August 2026, by which it purported to suspend all loading and truck-out of products from the plaintiff’s refinery pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice, which has been filed contemporaneously with the present application”.
The firm also prayed for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendant and all of its servants, privies, or agents from entering upon, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising, sanctioning, or otherwise interfering with the 1st applicant’s refinery, petrochemical, terminal, storage, blending, loading, truck-out, and related facilities and operations situated in the Lekki Free Zone, in purported exercise of the directive contained in the defendant’s letter of 24th August 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice that has been filed contemporaneously with the present application.
Specifically, Akeredolu (SAN) told the court the motion Exparte for the orders sought for contained grounds for the orders, a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by of Wale Aroge, a written address and some documentary exhibits marked as exhibits A1-A6.
She therefore prayed the court to grant their client’s request.
Justice Aluko after considering the application, counsel’s submissions and all the processes filed held that: “I have carefully read the application, which is predicated on a 42-paragraph affidavit, together with Exhibits A1 to A6 attached thereto. I have also considered the submissions of counsel in support of the application, including the defendant’s letter dated August 24, 2026.
“From the depositions in the affidavit and the exhibits placed before the court, the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant has no regulatory powers or oversight functions capable of affecting operations within the free zones, including the Dangote Industrial Free Zone.
“I have also seen the letter issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation, dated March 2, 2026, which clearly stated that the defendant is not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within the free zones. I have equally considered the defendant’s letter dated August 24, 2026, by which it purported to exercise such powers.
“The important question, therefore, is whether the defendant can or should be allowed to exercise such regulatory authority pending the determination of the substantive issues before the court.
“The depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit in support disclose serious issues for determination in this case.
“On the issue of urgency, paragraphs 33 to 39 of the main affidavit establish the need for the intervention of the court. What the plaintiff has asked this court to do is to preserve the res pending the determination of the motion on notice.
“Every court has the inherent power and duty to preserve the res and prevent a situation where the subject matter of litigation would be destroyed or altered before the substantive application is determined.
“The law is settled on the conditions which an applicant must satisfy to be entitled to an order of interim injunction. Those conditions have been considered and stated in this ruling, and I find that they have been satisfied in the present case.
“The plaintiff has also undertaken to indemnify the defendant in damages should it subsequently be found that this order ought not to have been granted.
Accordingly, I find merit in the application, and the same is hereby granted in terms of the reliefs sought. The plaintiff shall file a formal undertaking as to damages. This order, together with the notice of the court, shall be served on the defendant.”
Justice Aluko thereafter adjourned the matter to September 9, 2026, for the hearing of the motion on notice.
