Library / IHS LTD & INT TOWERS LTD VS NMDPRA JUDGEMENT
IHS LTD & INT TOWERS LTD VS NMDPRA JUDGEMENT

Page 14 of 44
In response to paras] 13 - 15, the Plaintiffs are engaged in separate and distinct 
aspects of petroleum liquids operation. In further response to paras. 15.1 and 
15.2, the Defendant denies issuing any storage license to any of the Plaintiffs or 
their affiliates. The li¢ense issued to the 24 Plaintiff and also Chisco Ltd which is 
used by the 1° Plaintiff are petroleum depot licenses, simpliciter, not storage 
licenses, and so doesnot permit the licensees to deploy stored products for their 
own.use, but to sell (Exh. A). It is not true that the Plaintiffs do not deal in, trade, 
sell or buy AGO. The i 
Plaintiff as a wholesale petroleum liquids supplier having 
transferred custody of its imported petroleum products to a storage facility has 
sold or is deemed to have sold the products to the storage facility as a wholesale 
customer, Specifically, when the 1‘ Plaintiff transfers its imported AGO into the 
storage facility of Chisco Ltd, it does so as a wholesale supplier, while Chisco Ltd 
. 
receives the product as a wholesale customer which deems such transaction as 
a sale and subject to be levied, likewise, the 2" Plaintiff's petroleum depot in 
_ 
Koko. The Plaintiffs sell petroleum products to telcos by including the costs of 
' petroleum products amongst other related cost heads. Telcos requested a 40% 
: 
increase in call, SMS, and data costs due to escalating operational expenses in 
the country, which decision was driven by a 35% surge in operating expenses 
due to heightened energy costs (Exhs. A2), All. Telecommunication entities are 
mandated to secure storage licence for any base station with over 500 litres of 
petroleum products in line with the definition of a wholesale customer, of which 
the 2" Plaintiff has one (Exhs, A3, A4 and AS), The Plaintiffs by dealing with 
petroleum products in a commercial manner with a third party, qualify for levy. 
‘The Plaintiffs are required to conduct these activities transparently and by so 
doing are obligated to submit transaction details to the Defendant. By their own 
admission in paragraphs 15.3 and 16, the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with 
JUDGEMENT IN JH9 (MIGERIA) LTD. & ANOR. 
v. THE NIG. MIDSTREAM & DOWNSTREAM PE TROLEUM REGULATORY AUTHOR: 
SUIT NO: FHC/ABI/CS/1480/2023