A Federal High Court in Lagos has temporarily barred the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) from closing or disrupting Dangote Petroleum Refinery, after the judge said a federal Attorney-General’s letter indicated that the regulator lacked oversight authority over businesses operating in a free trade zone.
Court blocks proposed regulatory action
Justice Akintayo Aluko issued the interim order on Monday in favour of Dangote Refinery, which operates within the Lekki Free Zone. The ruling prevents the NMDPRA from using its regulatory mandate as the basis for shutting the facility while the underlying dispute is being considered.
The order followed an ex parte application in case number FHC/L/CS/1174/26. The application was filed and argued by a legal team representing Dangote Petroleum Refinery, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olawale Akoni.
The refinery, whose stated processing capacity is 700,000 barrels per day, challenged an NMDPRA directive issued in a letter dated August 24, 2026. The directive purportedly halted the loading and truck-out of products from the plant until the court determined a separate motion on notice filed alongside the application.
Reliefs requested by the refinery
- Dangote sought an order preventing the NMDPRA, its officials, agents, representatives, partners or anyone acting on its instructions from enforcing or taking further steps under the August 24 directive.
- It also requested interim protection against entry onto the refinery site, sealing or closure of the facility, access restrictions, obstruction, suspension, operational disruption, inspection, supervision, sanctions or other interference.
- The requested protection covered the refinery’s petrochemical, terminal, storage, blending, loading, truck-out and related assets and activities located in the Lekki Free Zone.
- The restraint was sought until the court could hear and decide the motion on notice filed at the same time as the interim application.
Attorney-General’s position cited in ruling
After reviewing the application, the lawyers’ arguments and the documents before him, Justice Aluko said the filing was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit and six exhibits identified as A1 through A6. He also examined the NMDPRA’s August 24 correspondence, including its attempt to exercise regulatory powers over the refinery.
The judge said he had reviewed a March 2, 2026 letter from the Attorney-General of the Federation. In his description of the document, the letter expressly stated that the NMDPRA was not authorised to carry out regulatory or oversight functions over operations inside free trade zones.
Justice Aluko contrasted that position with the regulator’s August 24 letter and framed the central issue as whether the NMDPRA should be permitted to exercise the disputed authority before the court reaches a decision on the substantive claims.
Basis for interim injunction
The judge said courts possess both the inherent authority and the responsibility to preserve the subject matter of a case. That power is intended to prevent the disputed asset or activity from being destroyed, changed or otherwise compromised before the main application is resolved.
He added that the legal requirements for obtaining an interim injunction were established in the ruling and had been met by the refinery in this case. The applicant had also committed to compensating the NMDPRA if a later decision found that the protective order should not have been issued.
On that basis, the court found the application justified and granted the requested reliefs. Dangote Refinery was directed to submit a formal undertaking covering potential damages, while the order and the court’s notice were to be served on the NMDPRA.
The judge adjourned the proceedings until September 9, 2026, when the court is scheduled to hear the motion on notice.
