LAGOS — The legal battle between Dangote Petroleum Refinery and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority has intensified over the handling and distribution of propane, with the regulator alleging safety violations and product diversion while the refinery accuses it of exceeding its regulatory powers.

The dispute returned to the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday, where NMDPRA asked the court to discharge an interim injunction preventing it from enforcing a directive suspending propane loading and truck out operations at the refinery.

Justice Akintayo Aluko declined to bring the interim protection to an end and instead extended the order pending the hearing of Dangote's substantive application or further direction from the court.

The case will now be returned to the court registry for reassignment after Justice Aluko explained that his jurisdiction as a vacation judge ends on Friday.

The dispute centres on an August 24 directive issued by NMDPRA following an investigation into the movement and handling of propane supplied from the refinery.

NMDPRA maintains that its intervention was driven by public safety concerns. Dangote, however, argues that the regulator had already inspected and certified its propane before independent customers transported it away from the refinery.

Regulator alleges propane diversion

NMDPRA told the court that its investigation followed laboratory tests on LPG samples obtained from three plants.

According to the regulator, samples from the facilities allegedly contained propane levels above 50 per cent.

NMDPRA said the applicable LPG blend should contain no more than about 20 per cent propane, with butane accounting for approximately 80 per cent.

Representatives of the affected plants were subsequently invited by the regulator and allegedly identified Sublime Oil and Gas Limited, an off taker from Dangote Refinery, as their source of propane.

The regulator said the findings led it to begin a broader reconciliation exercise involving propane producers and LPG blending facilities.

NMDPRA further alleged that its officials were denied access when they attempted to inspect propane loading operations and relevant records at Dangote Refinery on August 24.

Following that encounter, the regulator issued a notice of potential non compliance and directed the refinery to suspend propane loading and truck out operations while investigations continued.

NMDPRA raises questions over dozens of trucks

One of the most significant aspects of the regulator's case involves the destinations of propane trucks leaving the refinery.

According to NMDPRA, records showed that Sublime Oil and Gas lifted 25 trucks of propane on August 20 and August 22 for delivery to Navgas and Agasco.

The regulator alleged that Navgas confirmed receiving only six of those trucks, leaving 19 consignments unaccounted for in its reconciliation exercise.

NMDPRA also alleged that another off taker loaded 52 trucks between May and August for delivery to Navgas but that Navgas reported receiving none of those consignments.

The allegations have not been determined by the court, and no finding has been made that Dangote Refinery or the off takers violated the law.

The regulator argues that any diversion of propane to unauthorised customers could create significant safety risks if the product is used for LPG blending at facilities that are not equipped to handle it.

NMDPRA also raised concerns over differences in vapour pressure.

It told the court that propane produced by Dangote and other gas processing facilities could have a vapour pressure of approximately 13 bar, compared with about seven bar for the standard propane and butane LPG mixture cited by the regulator.

It argued that using higher pressure propane at unsuitable LPG facilities could increase safety risks.

Dangote rejects regulator's position

Dangote Group has challenged NMDPRA's account and questioned why the refinery should be held responsible for what independent customers do with products after taking delivery.

Dangote Group spokesman Anthony Chiejina said NMDPRA personnel were present at the refinery and had inspected and certified the product before it was released.

“We have NMDPRA staff there in the refinery. They inspected and certified the product as okay,” Chiejina said.

Dangote's position is that once an independent company collects certified propane using its own truck, responsibility for the subsequent destination of the product should not automatically be attributed to the refinery.

Chiejina described the regulator's attempt to intervene at the refinery as an abuse of power and challenged NMDPRA to produce its records relating to the inspections and certification.

The refinery's arguments form part of a broader legal dispute over the extent of NMDPRA's regulatory authority over operations inside the Lekki Free Zone.

Court protection remains in place

Dangote initially approached the Federal High Court after receiving the regulator's August 24 directive.

On August 31, Justice Aluko issued an interim injunction preventing NMDPRA from enforcing the suspension.

The order restrains the regulator and its representatives from entering, sealing, shutting down, restricting access to, obstructing, suspending, disrupting, inspecting, supervising, sanctioning or otherwise interfering with the refinery's operations pending further proceedings.

NMDPRA subsequently asked the court to discharge the injunction.

Its counsel, Matthew Burkaa, argued that the order had been obtained through alleged misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.

The regulator also challenged the jurisdiction of the court to issue the injunction.

At Wednesday's proceedings, Dangote's counsel, Wale Akoni, requested additional time to respond to NMDPRA's counter affidavit, saying the refinery had only been served with the document in court that day.

NMDPRA did not oppose the request but stressed that the matter was urgent because of the safety concerns it had raised.

Justice Aluko said he could not set another hearing date because his assignment as a vacation judge was ending.

He therefore ordered the case file returned to the registry for reassignment by the administrative judge.

The judge also extended the August 31 interim injunction.

“I find it proper to extend the interim order made on the 31st day of August 2026,” Justice Aluko said.

The order will remain effective until the substantive motion is heard or the court issues another directive.

Major regulatory questions remain unresolved

The court has not yet ruled on the substance of NMDPRA's allegations concerning propane distribution, the alleged missing consignments or the safety concerns raised by the regulator.

It has also not finally determined the broader question surrounding the extent of NMDPRA's regulatory powers over the refinery's operations within the Lekki Free Zone.

For now, Dangote Refinery remains protected from the enforcement measures covered by the interim injunction.

The next stage of the dispute will depend on the reassignment of the case and the hearing of the refinery's substantive application.

Until then, NMDPRA's allegations concerning the propane consignments remain contested claims, while Dangote continues to maintain that its products were inspected and certified before leaving the refinery.