{"id":4869,"date":"2025-03-18T13:29:40","date_gmt":"2025-03-18T13:29:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beadysword.com.ng\/blog\/?p=4869"},"modified":"2025-03-18T13:29:40","modified_gmt":"2025-03-18T13:29:40","slug":"import-licence-dispute-nnpcls-bid-to-halt-dangote-refinerys-suit-fails-in-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beadysword.com.ng\/blog\/2025\/03\/18\/import-licence-dispute-nnpcls-bid-to-halt-dangote-refinerys-suit-fails-in-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Import Licence Dispute: NNPCL\u2019s Bid To Halt Dangote Refinery\u2019s Suit Fails In Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL)\u2019s preliminary objection against a suit filed by the Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE over an oil import licence dispute.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling on Tuesday, dismissed the objection on the grounds that the application was incompetent.<\/p>\n

Justice Ekwo held that the NNPCL ought to have filed a defence in the form of a counter-affidavit to the Dangote Refinery\u2019s originating process before raising an objection.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is pertinent for parties to note the distinction between \u2018demurrer proceedings\u2019 and \u2018proceedings in lieu of demurrer.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cThe difference is that in the former, the defendant need not file a statement of defence, but in the latter, a statement of defence is a sine qua non for an applicant wishing to raise preliminary issues for trial,\u201d he said, citing previous cases to back the decision.<\/p>\n

The judge said under the procedure in lieu of demurrer, any party is entitled to raise, by his pleading, any point of law, and any point so raised may be disposed of by the trial court at or after the trial.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnlike in the abolished demurrer procedure, where the applicant does not need to file a statement of defence before raising the point of law in contention, this is not so under the procedure in lieu of demurrer.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThe point of law must be raised first in the statement of defence before the applicant can proceed to file his objection, in which the point of law is again raised for determination before the trial.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe essence of pleading the objection in the statement of defence and filing a motion to raise the same is to give the adverse party notice of what to expect at the trial by way of defence or preliminary objection to the suit.\u201d
\nThe judge observed that the NNPCL, in its preliminary objection, challenged the jurisdiction of the court among the six issues it raised.<\/p>\n

He said grounds one to five of the objections are referred to as points of law.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Justice Ekwo, however, held that where a defendant seeks to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, it is the provision of Order 29 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules (FHCCPR), 2019, that would be applicable, which the NNPCL failed to comply with.<\/p>\n

He said that the NNPCL, having not complied with the provisions of the FHCCPR 2019, had not filed a competent preliminary objection.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe preliminary objection must be struck out, and I so hold,\u201d he ruled.<\/p>\n

Also delivering a ruling on the Dangote Refinery\u2019s motion on notice filed to amend its originating motion by correcting the name of the Nigerian National Corporation Limited (NNPCL) to read Nigerian National Company Limited (NNPCL), the judge dismissed the NNPCL\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Justice Ekwo held that the issue of a mistake in names was just a misnomer in law, which can be corrected at any stage, even while on appeal.<\/p>\n

He said: \u201cWhere the court is faced with an application for amendment, there are relevant issues for consideration, which include the attitude of the parties, the nature of the amendment, and the question in controversy,\u201d among all other relevant considerations.<\/p>\n

He said the law does not allow a party to file a preliminary objection to stop an application for amendment.<\/p>\n

According to him, technical errors, like mistakes in writing, are treated as misnomers.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Besides, the judge held that the NNPCL would not suffer any miscarriage of justice if the refinery was allowed to amend the suit.<\/p>\n

Justice Ekwo consequently made an order directing Dangote to amend its suit by correcting the NNPCL to read Nigerian National Company Limited (NNPCL) instead of Nigerian National Corporation Limited.<\/p>\n

He also ordered the refinery to file the amendment within 14 days of the order and granted each defendant 14 days to file and serve their responses.<\/p>\n

Justice Ekwo also dismissed the application filed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) seeking to join the suit as a defendant.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n