The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has restrained the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NMDPRA, from enforcing its directive suspending the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the Dangote Petroleum Refinery, pending the hearing and determination of a substantive application challenging the regulator’s authority over operations within the Lekki Free Zone.
Justice Akintayo Aluko granted the interim injunction on Monday in an ex parte application marked FHC/L/CS/1174/2026, filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery Nigeria Limited through its counsel, Olawale Akoni, SAN, and Mrs Abimbola Akeredolu, SAN.
The dispute arose from a letter dated August 24, 2026, in which NMDPRA directed the suspension of loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the refinery.
Dangote consequently approached the court seeking urgent protection against enforcement of the directive while its substantive challenge to the regulator’s powers remained pending.
The refinery asked the court to restrain NMDPRA, its officers, agents, representatives and anybody acting under its authority from enforcing or giving effect to the August 24 directive until the hearing and final determination of its motion on notice.
Dangote also sought an interim order preventing the regulator from entering, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising, sanctioning or otherwise interfering with its refinery, petrochemical, terminal, storage, blending, loading, truck-out and related facilities situated within the Lekki Free Zone.
Presenting the application, Akeredolu told the court that it was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6.
She argued that the circumstances required urgent judicial intervention to preserve the subject matter of the litigation until the substantive questions raised by the refinery could be determined.
In his ruling, Justice Aluko held that the materials placed before the court disclosed serious questions requiring judicial determination, particularly concerning the scope of NMDPRA’s regulatory and oversight powers over activities conducted within free zones.
The judge noted that Dangote’s central case was that NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight authority capable of affecting its operations within 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 the materials before the court, stated that NMDPRA was not authorised to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.
The court observed that despite the position contained in the Attorney-General’s letter, NMDPRA subsequently issued the August 24 directive asserting regulatory authority over the refinery’s operations.
Justice Aluko said the immediate question before the court was therefore whether the regulator should be permitted to exercise the disputed powers while the substantive legal issues surrounding the extent of its jurisdiction remained unresolved.
On the question of urgency, the judge found that paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit demonstrated circumstances requiring immediate judicial intervention.
On the question of urgency, the judge found that paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit demonstrated circumstances requiring immediate judicial intervention.
Justice Aluko further held that the purpose of the interim relief sought by Dangote was to preserve the subject matter of the litigation pending the hearing of the motion on notice.
The court stressed that courts possess inherent powers and a duty to prevent the subject matter of litigation from being destroyed, altered or rendered ineffective before the substantive dispute is determined.
After considering the materials presented, Justice Aluko concluded that Dangote had satisfied the legal requirements for the grant of an interim injunction.
The judge also noted that the refinery had undertaken to compensate NMDPRA for any damages that might arise if it was ultimately established that the interim 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.