Dangote Refinery: Court stops PENGASSAN from embarking on strike 

 The National Industrial Court in Abuja has issued an order restraining the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) from going ahead with its planned strike action against Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE.

Justice Emmanuel Subilim delivered the ruling on Monday after considering an ex-parte application filed by the management of Dangote Refinery. The court held that the order was necessary to prevent disruptions pending the determination of the substantive case before it.

Other defendants in the matter included the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Ltd, NNPCL, Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum, as well as the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission.

The court specifically barred the defendants from cutting crude and gas supply to Dangote Refinery.

In the motion it filed through a team of lawyers led by Mr. Ogwu Onoja, SAN, Dangote Refinery applied for order of interim injunction to restrain the 1st defendant, its members, agents, servants, privies, representatives, assigns or whatsoever and howsoever called, from calling or directing the halt of crude and gas supply to the claimant, 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, shutting down operations of the claimant or licensees of the 2nd to 4th defendants named in the 1st defendant’s directives dated September 26, 2025 or by any means frustrating the businesses/activities of the claimant/Applicant, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on notice.

The litigant equally sought 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.

Dangote Refinery told the court that it 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.

It averred that recently, there have been incidents of sabotage by some of employees at its plant, which brought up issues of grave health concern and safety of human lives.

According to the claimant, its management 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 dated September 25, 2025.

Counsel to the claimant further told the court that in the early hours of September 26, the claimant received online report that it laid workers off because they joined the 1st defendant’s union.

He said the management of the claimant, through a press statement, debunked the allegation and explained the company was not averse to its members joining unions as such was within their constitutional rights.

He disclosed that the claimant has over 3,000 Nigerians in its workforce, insisting that only a neglible number of the staff members were affected by the re-organisation that was occasioned by sabotage and safety concerns.

The lawyer equally told the court that by a letter dated September 26 and circulated online, the 1st defendant, through its General Secretary, Comrade Lamumba Okugbawa, wrote to the Hon. Minister of Petroleum & Gas, and warned that the 1st defendant and its members would take action that would force Dangote Refinery to its knees should it fail to recall the affected staff which was described in the said letter as over 800.

“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,” the claimant further averred.

In his ruling, Justice Subilim held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Applicant as the continuation of the strike action would irreparably damage its business and cripple the provision of essential services to the Nigerian public.

He held that it was in the interest of justice for the court to restrain the defendants so as to preserve the industrial peace and aid the continuous provision of essential services to the Nigerian public, pending the determination of the substantive suit.

Consequently, the court ordered the service of the restraining order and motion on notice, on the defendants.

While adjourning the case till October 13 for hearing, the court held that the interim order would have a seven-day life span.

(Vanguard)