Court stops PENGASSAN, others from cutting gas supply to Dangote Refinery
Justice Sublim, ruling on an ex-parte application by Dangote Refinery on Monday, specifically restrained PENGASSAN from cutting crude and gas supply to Dangote Refinery.
Besides PENGASSAN, other defendants in the suit include Nigeria National Petroleum Company Ltd, NNPCL, Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NMDPRA, and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, NUPRC.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, George Ibrahim, argued the application for Dangote Refinery.
Ibrahim in the ex-parte motion applied for order of interim injunction
restraining PENGASSAN, its members, agents, servants, privies, representatives and assigns from calling or directing the halt of crude and gas supply to the refinery under any guise and or embarking on any industrial action against the claimant with a view to crippling, blocking roads or obstructing the flow of vehicular movement, or shutting down its operations, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
“An order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd – 4th Defendants, their employees, members, agents, servants, privies, representatives, licensees, assigns or whatsoever and howsoever called from giving effect to the directives of the 1st Defendant to halt the supply of crude and gas to the Claimant or joining, continuing, embarking on, or in any manner participating in the planned industrial action of the 1st Defendant and its affiliates and cronies or any other strike whatsoever against the Claimant/Applicant with a view to frustrating her businesses and operations pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.”
Ibrahim argued that the applicant is a petroleum production and or distribution company licensed to own, operate and produce petroleum and petrochemical products for the general consumption of the Nigerian public, and whose business provides essential services to the Nigerian economy and the general public.
He said that in recent times, there have been incidents of sabotage by some employees of the claimant at the claimant’s plant which sprang up issues of grave health concern and safety of human lives.
According to him, the management of Dangote Refinery came to an irresistible conclusion that there should be re-organisation in the plant which led to relieving of some of its staff of their employment and same was communicated to all staff by a memo or circular dated 25th September, 2025.
The senior lawyer said that in the early hours of Friday, 26th September 2025, the refinery received online report that the Nigerian workers were laid off by the claimant because they joined the union.
According to him, the management of the refinery through a press statement refuted the said report and explained in clear terms that the claimant was not averse to its members unionizing as that is their constitutional right but however clarified that the claimant has over 3,000 Nigerians in its workforce and that only a neglible number of staff were affected by the re-organisation of the plant as a result of sabotage and safety concerns.
The lawyer asserted that by a letter dated September 26, 2025 and circulated online, PENGASSAN through its General Secretary, Comrade Lamumba Ighotemu Okugbawa wrote to the Minister of Petroleum, Gas, and warned that the union and its members were going to take action that would force Dangote Refinery to its knees if it fails to recall the affected staff which was described in the said letter as over 800.
He added, “The 1st Defendant issued a press statement on the 26th day of September, 2025 wherein it erroneously referred to the laying off of the workers by the Claimant as anti-labour practices, alleging that the workers were being victimized because they joined the 1st Defendant as members of the union which is not correct.
“Irrespective of the explanation offered by the Claimant in Exhibit DR3, the 1st Defendant became more provoked and directed its Executives and Members in the licensees of the 2nd – 4th Defendants through whom the Claimant accesses crude and gas for its plant to stop supplying gas to the Claimant.
“The 2nd – 4th Defendants are on standby to carry out the directives of the 1st Defendant through their agents and licensees as mentioned in Exhibit DR6 with a view to stopping the supply of gas and crude oil to the Claimant in order to halt its business and operation as threatened unless the Honourable Court intervenes.
“The 1st Defendant is going to make good its threat to shut down operations of the Claimant knowing the strength of its membership across the country unless the Honourable Court intervenes.
“The Claimant’s plant was constructed with over 20 Billion UD Dollars by its promoters to solve the energy problem of Nigeria that has been lingering for decades and has been sailing with good results to consumer satisfaction and have been making significant contribution to the economy of Nigeria, but the 1st Defendant if allowed to make good its threat will undoubtedly plunge Nigeria into the dark days of energy dearth and crisis and again, jeopardise the livelihood of the Nigerian’s end users and consumers and negatively impact on the economy
“The 1st Defendant, its members and protegees in the services of the 2nd – 4th Defendants have perfected plans to embark on an industrial action which will cripple to operations and services of the Claimant to the Nigerian public as well as the economy.
“The 1st Defendant has not engaged the Claimant with respect to a dispute, if any, before championing and calling for an industrial action against the Claimant contrary to the extant laws of the Federal republic of Nigeria.”
In his brief ruling on ex-parte application, Justice Subilim held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant as the continuation of the strike would irreparably damage its business and cripple the provision of essential services to the Nigerian public.
The Judge held that it was in the interest of justice for the Court to restrain the Respondents to preserve the industrial peace and further aid the continuous provision of essential services to the Nigerian public pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
Justice Subilim while granting the restraining order, directed that same be served on the defendants immediately along with motion on notice.
The judge held that the restraining order shall last for seven days only.
He subsequently fixed October 13, 2025, for hearing of the motion on notice.
