Nigeria
New York Convention
Mauritus Convention
(Ratification (r), Accession(a), Succession(d)
17 Mar 1970 (a)
Signature (s) Ratification (r), Acceptance(A), Approval(AA), Accession(a)
Not a signatory
Arbitration Legislation
International Arbitration Centers
On 10 May 2022, the Nigerian Senate passed the Arbitration and Mediation Bill 2022 (the “Bill”). The Bill will repeal the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1988 (the “1988 Act”)
The Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration – Lagos (RCICAL) , The Lagos Court of Arbitration (LCA), Lagos Chamber of Commerce International Arbitration Centre (LACIAC)
ICSID
Regional Economic Community
signature (s), ratification(r), entry into force (ef)
Jul 13, 1965
Aug 23, 1965
Oct 14, 1966
ECOWAS
BIT's in force
IN FORCE:
China, Finland, France, Italy, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom
NOT IN FORCE:
Algeria, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jamaica, Kuwait, Morocco, Russian Federation, Singapore, Turkey (2011), Turkey (1996), Uganda, United Arab Emirates
I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
- Veolia Propreté
- National Gas S.A.E.
- Champion Trading Company and Ameritrade International, Inc.
- Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A.
- Wena Hotels Limited
- Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V.
- Emerge Gaming Ltd. and Tantalum International Ltd.
- International Holding Project Group and others
- Future Pipe International B.V.
- Al Jazeera Media Network
- Champion Holding Company, James Tarrick Wahba, John Byron Wahba and others
- LP Egypt Holdings I, LLC, Fund III Egypt, LLC and OMLP Egypt Holdings I, LLC
- Nile Douma Holding
- Arcelor Mittal S.A.
- Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt
- (1) Ossama Al Sharif
- (2) Ossama Al Sharif
- (3) Ossama Al Sharif
- ASA International S.p.A
- Cementos La Union S.A. and Aridos Jativa S.L.U
- Utsch M.O.V.E.R.S. International GmbH, Erich Utsch Aktiengesellschaft, and Helmut Jungbluth
- Ampal-American Israel Corporation and others
- Yosef Maiman, Merhav (MNF), Merhav-Ampal Group, Merhav-Ampal Energy Holding
- Mohamed Abdel Raouf Bahgat
- Bawabet Al Kuwait Holding Company
- Indorama International Finance Limited
- Hussain Sajwani, Damac Park Avenue for Real Estate Development S.A.E., and Damac Gamsha Bay for Development S.A.E
- Malicorp Limited
- Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi
- Ahmonseto, Inc. and others
Start and End Date
Case Decission
June 25, 2012 – May 25, 2018
Deicded in favor of the state
Treaty Type
Amount Claimed
BIT
US$ 202.50 mln
Sector
Amount Given to Arbitrators
Water, Sanitation & Flood Protection
Material Unavailable
Representative of the Respondent
Legal Fees of Respondent
Anna Joubin-Bret, Paris, France
Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority (ESLA), Giza, Egypt
Mayer Brown, Paris, France
Material Unavailable
Representative of the Claimant
Legal Fees of Claimant
King & Spalding, Paris, France
Material Unavailable
Arbitration Center
Total Legal Fees
ICSID
Material Unavailable
Administrative Fees
Material Unavailable
Baker Marine Nigeria Limited vs Chevron Nigeria Limited - (2006) LPELR-715(SC)-Suit No: SC.374/2001
Summary
Consequent upon a dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent, redress was sought at the Arbitral Tribunal. One of the terms of agreement was that Nigerian Law would govern the substantive contract. The said contract excluded the award of punitive damages. However, the tribunal awarded punitive damages. The issue that then arose was whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the Federal High Court setting aside the arbitral award made in favour of the appellant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the Respondents because it lacked substance and merit. An error on the face of an award may justify its setting aside.
Calais Shipholding Company vs Bronwyn Energy Trading Limited - (2014) LPELR-23122(CA)
Summary
Parties were involved in a dispute relating to shipping transactions and subsequently submitted the dispute to Arbitration proceedings in England. The final award was made in favor of the appellant. By an exparte application, the appellant applied to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, England for the award to be given the status of Judgment of the said court. The application was granted and the appellant subsequently applied to the Federal High Court to register and enforce the said judgment obtained from England.
Final Decision
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act provided a simpler and easier approach to the registration of foreign awards in Nigeria. Thus, subject to section 32 and 51 (2) of the said Act, an arbitral award obtained anywhere in the world can be registered and recognized by any court in Nigeria without recourse to a foreign court to first adopt same as its Judgment.
Kano State Urban Development Board vs. Fanz Construction Company Ltd - (1990) LPELR-1659(SC)
Summary
Plaintiff (Fanz) sued Defendant (KSUDB), in a Kano high court, claiming against it N6, 922,742.00 being damages for a breach of an agreement. Both parties agreed to take case to an arbitrator. Arbitrator made an award in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant made an application to set aside the award. Application rejected. Whether his decision was right or wrong is not for this court to adjudication upon since the high court is not a court of Appeal over arbitration proceedings. An award cannot set aside in an action commenced by a writ, a fortiori; it cannot be set aside on a counter claim. So the trial Judge took the Plaintiff’s application to enforce the arbitrator’s award. The defendant appealed. Appeal dismissed because no grounds of appeal in support of the appeal against the order refusing to set aside the award. The defendant has appealed to the Supreme Court against this judgment.
Final Decision
The proper thing counsel should have done was to have argued the appeal by reference to the issues identified and no longer by reference the grounds which are supposed to have been subsumed under one or other of the issues arising for determination. The decision of the Kano State high court staying proceedings pending the decision of the arbitration is valid rightly or wrongly. No protest of any kind as to the authority of the arbitrator to act in the matter submitted to him. So Defendant couldn’t challenge authority of the arbitrator to take the reference. The Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there were no grounds of appeal before it against the order of the trial court refusing to set aside the arbitrator’s award. An undue delay in bringing an application under section 12(2) of the law to set aside an award can never militate against the application; it was the Appellant’s ground which has been up hold.
Murmansk State Steamship Line vs Kano Oil Millers Ltd. - (1974) LPELR-1927(SC)
Summary
In 1964 parties entered into an agreement of charter – party that was to require defendant to produce a cargo of groundnuts for shipment in a ship to be provided by the plaintiff. The substantive contract was to be regulated by Russian law and in the event of a dispute; such dispute would be referred to arbitration before a Moscow arbitral tribunal. The defendant defaulted and the matter was referred to a Moscow arbitral tribunal. The tribunal made an award in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought an action in the Kano State High Court for enforcement of the award. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court in its Judgment stated that the action was not brought in accordance with section 13 of the Arbitration Law of the Northern States which requires for leave of court or judge to be obtained first in order to enforce an arbitration award in High Court. Furthermore, that the statutory period of limitation should run from the date of the date of the breach of the charter-party when the “cause of arbitration” occurred and not from the date the award was made. Except the charter-party agreement contained a Scott v Avery clause stating that arbitration shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action in law.
Ogbuneke Sons And Company Limited vs Ed & F Man Nigeria Limited & ORS - (2010) LPELR-4688(CA)
Summary
The Appellant supplied a total of 250 metric tons of cocoa beans to the 1st and 2nd respondent at an agreed fee. Rather than paying the outstanding balance they decided to procure four arbitration awards. The Appellant sought an order of court setting aside four International Arbitration Awards obtained in London on the 15th of June 2001 by the 2nd respondent. The trial Judge agreed with the appellant that the four awards were invalid as the tribunal lacked jurisdiction (due to the absence of an enforceable contract between parties). However, the Trial Judge struck out the appellant’s application.
Final Decision
The Court of Appeal agreed that there was no enforceable contract between parties. However disagreed with the trial Judge on his stance on the need for registration before recognition. Furthermore, an arbitral award becomes binding and recognized as soon as it is made (irrespective of the country in which the award was made). The Appeal was allowed.
Sundersons Limited & Anor vs Cruiser Shipping Pte Limited & ANOR - (2014) LPELR-22561(CA)
Summary
The Respondents filed an application at the Lower Court, on the 27th of September, 2010, seeking the court to recognize and grant them leave to enforce in the same manner as Judgment of the Federal Court, the final arbitral award rendered in the United Kingdom in a dispute between Appellants and the Respondents.
Final Decision
In affirming the decision of the trial court stated that failure to attach an original copy of the Agreement does not render the application incompetent. The trial Court instead of striking out the application, exercised its discretion to enforce the award but subject to the production of an original copy of the Arbitration Agreement.
Tulip Nigeria Limited vs Noleggioe transport maritime S.A.S – CA/L/744/2007 (2010)
Summary
The respondent by an originating summons sought leave of the Federal High Court to recognize & enforce the Arbitral Award made in UK, of the sum of US$103,982.39 against the appellant. The latter filled a notice of preliminary objection. However the trial judge held that the action was not time barred & the sum was USD 18.671.84. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, appellant filed an appeal. The respondent did not obtain leave of High Court of England to enforce the award. The absence of such renders the award fallen short of the standard of a judgment. The respondent suit is not statute barred. The limitation law is not restricted to actions commenced in Lagos High Court only. Plus the limitation period for an action to recognize & enforce a foreign arbitration award in Nigeria is six years not one year.
Final Decision
The learned trial Judge was only enforcing the award granted by the arbitration in England. Appellant should have pursued in England by way of an appeal against the arbitral award. The award is binding on the parties. Therefore appeal is devoid of merit, dismissed. The judgment of trial court is affirmed.
Continental Sales Limited vs R. Shipping Inc – CA/L/807/2010 (2012)
Summary
Parties were involved in a dispute relating to shipping transactions and subsequently submitted the dispute to Arbitration proceedings in England. The final award was made in favor of the appellant. By an exparte application, the appellant applied to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, England for the award to be given the status of Judgment of the said court. The application was granted and the appellant subsequently applied to the Federal High Court to register and enforce the said judgment obtained from England.
Final Decision
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act provided a simpler and easier approach to the registration of foreign awards in Nigeria. Thus, subject to section 32 and 51 (2) of the said Act, an arbitral award obtained anywhere in the world can be registered and recognized by any court in Nigeria without recourse to a foreign court to first adopt same as its Judgment.
Adwork ltd v Nigeria Airways Ltd (2000) 2 NWLR (pt.645) pg 415
Summary
Parties were involved in a dispute relating to shipping transactions and subsequently submitted the dispute to Arbitration proceedings in England. The final award was made in favor of the appellant. By an exparte application, the appellant applied to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, England for the award to be given the status of Judgment of the said court. The application was granted and the appellant subsequently applied to the Federal High Court to register and enforce the said judgment obtained from England.
Final Decision
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act provided a simpler and easier approach to the registration of foreign awards in Nigeria. Thus, subject to section 32 and 51 (2) of the said Act, an arbitral award obtained anywhere in the world can be registered and recognized by any court in Nigeria without recourse to a foreign court to first adopt same as its Judgment.
IPCO (W.A) Holding ltd & Anor. V. Sembcorp eng, ptel ltd
Summary
Parties were involved in a dispute relating to shipping transactions and subsequently submitted the dispute to Arbitration proceedings in England. The final award was made in favor of the appellant. By an exparte application, the appellant applied to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, England for the award to be given the status of Judgment of the said court. The application was granted and the appellant subsequently applied to the Federal High Court to register and enforce the said judgment obtained from England.
Final Decision
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act provided a simpler and easier approach to the registration of foreign awards in Nigeria. Thus, subject to section 32 and 51 (2) of the said Act, an arbitral award obtained anywhere in the world can be registered and recognized by any court in Nigeria without recourse to a foreign court to first adopt same as its Judgment.