Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals has formally withdrawn its ₦100 billion lawsuit against the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), and five other petroleum firms.

The legal team for Dangote Refinery filed a notice of discontinuance at the Federal High Court in Abuja, ending proceedings against the defendants, which include Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, AYM Shafa Limited, A. A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, and 2015 Petroleum Limited.

No official reason was provided for the withdrawal, and it remains unclear whether an out-of-court settlement was reached or what concessions, if any, were made.

Dangote Refinery had previously sought ₦100 billion in damages, accusing the NMDPRA of violating Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) by issuing import licences to the defendants despite no declared national product shortfall. It argued that such actions hindered local refineries and breached the regulator’s statutory duties.

However, the defendants countered that they were qualified to receive import permits and accused Dangote of attempting to monopolise the sector. They defended competitive practices as vital to Nigeria’s economic wellbeing and energy market viability.

NMDPRA also denied any wrongdoing, stating that import licences were granted to address supply gaps and support national consumption needs. A counter-affidavit by its Senior Regulatory Officer, Idris Musa, argued that Dangote Refinery’s output was insufficient to meet demand.

The agency maintained it had a duty under the PIA to foster market competition and prevent monopolies.

Earlier, on 9 December 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its originating process to correct a naming error from “Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Limited” to “Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.”

Although NNPCL objected, citing misidentification, the court dismissed the objection in March 2025, ruling the mistake did not render the suit invalid and that substantive issues should be addressed before procedural objections.