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

Page 5 of 44
13. 
Whether the provisions of Regulations 3 and 4 (L) of the PTS 
Regulations are invalid for being ultra vires in imposing impractical, 
UINCAS nable, 
irrelevant, 
and unauthorized conditions on 
the 
voating and 
offloadinig 
of products from 
a 
non-trading-sole 
domestic use of the said products? 
The Plaintiffs seek the following reliefs: 
1. 
A Declar ation that the Plaintiffs not being licensees under the PIA are 
not 
subject 
to 
the 
Defendant’s 
regulations 
issued 
to 
regulate 
licensees issued pursuant to the PIA. 
72. 
A Declaration that the definition of “sold in Nigeria” in Regulation 48 
of the Operation Regulations (as a whole), is void 
- to the extent of 
its inconsistency or overreach of the provisions of Sections 47 (2) (c) 
~and 52 (7) (a) PIA. 
In the alternative 
3. 
A Declaration that paragraph C 
of the definition of “sold in Nigeria” 
in Regulation 48 of the Operation Regulations is void ~ to the extent: 
3.1, 
that it extends the meaning of “sold in Nigeria” in. Sections 
47 (2) (€), 52 (7) (a) & 52 (9) PIA to the activities in the 
downstream petroleum industry that do not entail sale oof 
petroleum 
products 
in 
Nigeria 
within 
the meaning 
of 
Section 47 (2) & 52 (7) (a) PIA; or 
3.2. 
that 
it has 
a wider scope than 
its enabling statute, 
or 
overreaches, (and is inconsistent with), the clear intention 
of the legislature in Sections 47 (2) (c); 52 (7) (a) & 52 (9) 
PIA, 
or 
for 
purporting 
to 
create 
additional 
terms 
or 
JUDGEMENT IN JHS (MIGERIA) 
SUIT NO: FHC/ABI/CS/1480/2023