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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.