Fuel Import Licences and the NMDPRA: What the Federal High Court Decided, and What It Left Open

On Monday, 28 September 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) to continue granting and renewing petroleum products import licences to three marketers, Matrix Energy, A.A. Rano and AYM Shafa, once they meet the regulator's conditions. Justice Inyang Ekwo is reported to have held that the NMDPRA's refusal to issue and renew the licences regularly was in "direct non-compliance" with the Petroleum Industry Act 2021 (PIA). The judgment did not strip the regulator of its licensing powers, and it did not decide the separate Lagos suit that Dangote Refinery has brought on the same subject. This article explains what was decided, what the reports do not say, and why the difference between a regulator's discretion and its duty matters.

What happened?

Premium Times, TheNigeriaLawyer and Sahara Reporters (citing Nairametrics) report that Ekwo J delivered judgment on Monday, 28 September 2026, in a suit the three companies filed in June 2026. The reports say the court found that the companies had established their claims and that the case succeeded on its merits. I have not seen the judgment itself, and the reports I found do not give the Abuja suit number or the full list of defendants, so this article refers to the case by its parties as reported rather than by a formal citation.

Why the marketers went to court

What follows are the claimants' allegations, not findings of the court. In an affidavit filed on 26 June 2026, Sabiu Saidu Mahuta, executive director of AA Rano Nigeria Limited, said that since July 2025 the NMDPRA had issued, extended or renewed the three companies' import licences only sporadically rather than regularly. He argued that this entrenched market dominance by local refineries, and said the three companies had together invested more than 20 billion US dollars in infrastructure, logistics and retail networks. Their lawyers argued that the PIA does not prohibit the importation of petroleum products or stop the regulator from licensing eligible importers, and that imports alongside local refining promote competition.

What the court decided

As reported, the court held the following.

1. The NMDPRA's refusal to issue or renew the three companies' import licences was inconsistent with the PIA and beyond the limits of the law.

2. Any exercise of the NMDPRA's powers over import licences in breach of the PIA and other relevant laws is "null and void".

3. Sections 31 and 32 of the PIA and other relevant provisions, read with section 72 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA), require the NMDPRA to promote competition in the midstream and downstream petroleum sectors and to prevent abuse of dominant market positions and restrictive business practices. Premium Times and TheNigeriaLawyer cite sections 31 and 32. One secondary source also lists section 211, which I could not confirm.

4. The three companies are entitled to the issuance, extension or renewal of their import licences once they fulfil the conditions the NMDPRA stipulates.

5. The NMDPRA is to continue granting, issuing, extending, renewing or reissuing licences, permits and authorisations for midstream and downstream operations, particularly petroleum products imports, where the statutory and regulatory preconditions are met.

TheNigeriaLawyer also reports that the court held that the PIA does not prohibit the importation of petroleum products.

What the court did not do

It did not take away the regulator's powers. The reports say the judge affirmed that the NMDPRA keeps exclusive authority to grant, modify, extend, renew, suspend, cancel or terminate licences and permits. TheNigeriaLawyer summarises the effect this way: those powers must be exercised within the framework of the PIA and other laws, not through a blanket or unlawful refusal to licence eligible operators. Nor does the order guarantee a licence. The entitlement is conditional on the companies meeting the regulator's requirements.

General background: discretion and duty

This section is general background, not drawn from the reports. A statute that says a regulator may grant a licence usually gives it a discretion, but a discretion must be exercised within the limits and for the purposes of the statute. A court can say that a refusal, or a pattern of delay, falls outside those limits without taking over the regulator's job of deciding who gets a licence. The reported order has that shape: it declares the refusals unlawful and directs continued licensing of eligible applicants, while leaving the regulator's powers in place. How the order is enforced, and what happens on appeal if there is one, are separate questions.

The separate Dangote case

Dangote Petroleum Refinery has a suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos, reported as FHC/L/CS/857/2026 and before Aneke J, challenging import licences issued or renewed around 6 May 2026 to NNPC Ltd and several marketers, including the three companies in this case. Dangote's position, as reported, is that section 317(9) of the PIA permits imports only where there is a proven shortfall in domestic supply, and that domestic refining capacity is now sufficient. NNPC's reported position is that the PIA and the Federal Government's Backward Integration Policy allow the NMDPRA to issue licences where necessary for supply security, and it has accused the refinery of seeking to monopolise the market. The three marketers have applied to join that suit. TheNigeriaLawyer states that the Abuja judgment does not determine the Lagos action. That case was listed for hearing on 7 October 2026, and I did not find a report of what happened at that hearing. The reports I read of the Abuja judgment do not say how the court dealt with section 317(9).

Why it matters

For law students, the case is a compact lesson in how a statute's competition mandate can limit a regulator's licensing discretion, and in the difference between declaring an action unlawful and replacing the decision-maker. For lawyers, it shows how a licence applicant can frame a pattern of irregular issuance as non-compliance with the regulator's own enabling Act.

For readers following the fuel market, the reported data gives context, not a verdict. NMDPRA figures cited by Premium Times show average daily petrol receipts rising from 45.5 million litres in July to 50.5 million litres in August 2026, with domestic supply up and imports down. The NMDPRA's spokesperson also confirmed that import permits covering about 830,000 metric tonnes were approved for the fourth quarter to avoid supply gaps. Those are reported background facts, not findings in this judgment, and this article takes no side on how much Nigeria should import.

Limits and open questions

The scope of the judgment should not be overstated. It is a first-instance decision between the parties to this suit. I have not seen the judgment, I did not find a response from the NMDPRA or a report of an appeal, and the reasoning described above comes from press summaries. I also do not know the outcome of the 7 October listing in the Lagos suit.

Key takeaway

A regulator's power to license is real, but it is bounded by the statute that creates it, including that statute's competition objectives. The Abuja court is reported to have enforced that boundary for three marketers while leaving the regulator's powers intact, and the wider dispute over imports and domestic refining remains for other proceedings.

Sources

Premium Times, "Court orders NMDPRA to continue issuing fuel import licences to Matrix, AA Rano, AYM Shafa", 28 September 2026: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/business/business-news/912999-court-orders-nmdpra-to-continue-issuing-fuel-import-licences-to-matrix-aa-rano-aym-shafa.html

TheNigeriaLawyer, "Continue Issuing Fuel Import Licences To Matrix, AA Rano, AYM Shafa", 28 September 2026: https://thenigerialawyer.com/continue-issuing-fuel-import-licences-to-matrix-aa-rano-aym-shafa-court-rules-nmdpras-refusal-violates-pia/

Sahara Reporters, "Court Backs Fuel Imports, Orders NMDPRA To Continue Granting Licences To Matrix, Two Others Amid Dispute With Dangote Refinery", 28 September 2026: https://saharareporters.com/2026/09/28/court-backs-fuel-imports-orders-nmdpra-continue-granting-licences-matrix-two-others-amid

Leadership, "Court Fixes Dangote Refinery's Suit Over Fuel Import Licences For 7 October": https://leadership.ng/court-fixes-dangote-refinerys-suit-over-fuel-import-licences-for-7-october/

Legislation referred to: Petroleum Industry Act 2021, sections 31, 32 and 317(9); Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, section 72. The judgment itself was not seen.