A Federal High Court in Lagos has issued an interim injunction restraining the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority from shutting down or interfering with the operations of Dangote Petroleum Refinery in the Lekki Free Zone.Justice Akintayo Aluko made the order on Monday while ruling on a motion ex parte marked FHC/L/CS/1174/26, filed and argued by counsel to Dangote Petroleum Refinery Nigeria Limited, led by Olawale Akoni and Abimbola Akeredolu, both Senior Advocates of Nigeria.The refinery had approached the court following a letter dated August 24, 2026, in which the NMDPRA allegedly directed the suspension of the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the refinery.In the application, the refinery asked the court to restrain the regulatory agency, its officers, agents, representatives, privies or any person acting under its authority from enforcing or implementing the directive pending the hearing and determination of its motion on notice.The company also sought an interim injunction restraining the NMDPRA and its agents 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 and operations within the Lekki Free Zone.Moving the application, Akeredolu told the court that the application was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6. She urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.In his ruling, Justice Aluko said he had carefully considered the application, the affidavit evidence, exhibits and submissions of counsel, including the NMDPRA’s letter of August 24, 2026.The judge noted that the refinery’s case was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones, including 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 judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. Justice Akintayo Aluko made the order on Monday while ruling on a motion ex parte marked FHC/L/CS/1174/26, filed and argued by counsel to Dangote Petroleum Refinery Nigeria Limited, led by Olawale Akoni and Abimbola Akeredolu, both Senior Advocates of Nigeria.The refinery had approached the court following a letter dated August 24, 2026, in which the NMDPRA allegedly directed the suspension of the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the refinery.In the application, the refinery asked the court to restrain the regulatory agency, its officers, agents, representatives, privies or any person acting under its authority from enforcing or implementing the directive pending the hearing and determination of its motion on notice.The company also sought an interim injunction restraining the NMDPRA and its agents 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 and operations within the Lekki Free Zone.Moving the application, Akeredolu told the court that the application was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6. She urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.In his ruling, Justice Aluko said he had carefully considered the application, the affidavit evidence, exhibits and submissions of counsel, including the NMDPRA’s letter of August 24, 2026.The judge noted that the refinery’s case was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones, including 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 judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. The refinery had approached the court following a letter dated August 24, 2026, in which the NMDPRA allegedly directed the suspension of the loading and truck-out of petroleum products from the refinery.In the application, the refinery asked the court to restrain the regulatory agency, its officers, agents, representatives, privies or any person acting under its authority from enforcing or implementing the directive pending the hearing and determination of its motion on notice.The company also sought an interim injunction restraining the NMDPRA and its agents 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 and operations within the Lekki Free Zone.Moving the application, Akeredolu told the court that the application was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6. She urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.In his ruling, Justice Aluko said he had carefully considered the application, the affidavit evidence, exhibits and submissions of counsel, including the NMDPRA’s letter of August 24, 2026.The judge noted that the refinery’s case was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones, including 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 judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. In the application, the refinery asked the court to restrain the regulatory agency, its officers, agents, representatives, privies or any person acting under its authority from enforcing or implementing the directive pending the hearing and determination of its motion on notice.The company also sought an interim injunction restraining the NMDPRA and its agents 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 and operations within the Lekki Free Zone.Moving the application, Akeredolu told the court that the application was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6. She urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.In his ruling, Justice Aluko said he had carefully considered the application, the affidavit evidence, exhibits and submissions of counsel, including the NMDPRA’s letter of August 24, 2026.The judge noted that the refinery’s case was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones, including 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 judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. The company also sought an interim injunction restraining the NMDPRA and its agents 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 and operations within the Lekki Free Zone.Moving the application, Akeredolu told the court that the application was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6. She urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.In his ruling, Justice Aluko said he had carefully considered the application, the affidavit evidence, exhibits and submissions of counsel, including the NMDPRA’s letter of August 24, 2026.The judge noted that the refinery’s case was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones, including 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 judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. Moving the application, Akeredolu told the court that the application was supported by a 42-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Wale Aroge, a written address and documentary exhibits marked A1 to A6. She urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.In his ruling, Justice Aluko said he had carefully considered the application, the affidavit evidence, exhibits and submissions of counsel, including the NMDPRA’s letter of August 24, 2026.The judge noted that the refinery’s case was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones, including 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 judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. In his ruling, Justice Aluko said he had carefully considered the application, the affidavit evidence, exhibits and submissions of counsel, including the NMDPRA’s letter of August 24, 2026.The judge noted that the refinery’s case was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones, including 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 judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. The judge noted that the refinery’s case was that the NMDPRA lacked regulatory or oversight powers over operations within free zones, including 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 judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. Justice Aluko also referred to a letter dated March 2, 2026, issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation, which, according to the judge, stated that the NMDPRA was not entitled to exercise regulatory powers or oversight functions over operations within free zones.He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. He said the court had also considered the NMDPRA’s August 24 letter, through which the agency purportedly sought to exercise such powers. Justice Aluko said, “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.”He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. He held that the depositions contained in paragraphs 17 to 32 of the affidavit disclosed serious issues requiring determination by the court. On the urgency of the application, the judge said paragraphs 33 to 39 of the affidavit established the need for judicial intervention.According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. According to him, the refinery was seeking to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. He said, “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 judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. The judge further held that the refinery had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of an interim injunction. He noted that the company had also undertaken to indemnify the NMDPRA in damages if it was subsequently established that the 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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. “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,” Justice Aluko ruled.The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice. The judge directed that the order and notice of the court be served on the NMDPRA. He subsequently adjourned the case until September 9, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice.