International Arbitration 2025

NIGERIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Muyiwa Ogungbenro and Daniel Adegbamigbe, Olajide Oyewole LLP (DLA Piper Africa, Nigeria)

Introduction Nigeria is moving towards making itself a darling of foreign direct investors again. As a jurisdiction that is notorious for its long delays in dispute resolution, enhancing its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism is a step in the right direction. Recent - ly, Nigeria’s Federal Executive Council adopted the National Policy on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 2024 (the “Policy”). This article explores the objectives of the Policy and examines its key provisions, focusing on how it seeks to enhance Nigeria’s appeal as a commercially friendly jurisdiction. Background to the Policy Over the years, Nigeria has faced several challenges that have hindered its perception as a preferred dis - pute resolution centre. Despite its potential to offer efficient and impartial resolutions to commercial Afri - can disputes, Nigeria has struggled with a few key issues. These challenges have contributed to a reluc - tance by foreign investors to choose Nigeria as the seat of arbitration. One of the major obstacles has been the lack of a strong arbitration framework and national willingness to strengthen the dispute resolution system. Recognising these gaps, the Policy was introduced as a strategic initiative to address these barriers, enhance institutional support for arbitration, and position Nige - ria as a leading destination for arbitration in Africa. Objective and Goal of the Policy On 15 July 2024, the Nigerian Federal Executive Council adopted the Policy, which is set to drive the implementation of the National Policy on Justice 2024. The Policy is to reflect the federal government’s com - mitment to creating a robust and supportive environ - ment for arbitration. The Policy is expected to not only promote the growth and practice of ADR in Nigeria but also to align with Nigeria’s international treaty obliga - tions under the UNCITRAL Model Law and various other international conventions to which Nigeria is a

• expedite the resolution of commercial disputes; • promote ease of doing business; and • enhance investor confidence. The goal of the Policy is to establish fundamental principles to guide the federal and state government’s participation in arbitration references, positioning Nigeria as an attractive arbitration hub for domestic, regional and international commercial arbitration while The Policy introduces a new initiative aimed at pro - viding a simplified and cost-effective mechanism for resolving certain types of disputes, particularly small commercial claims. This builds on the Lagos State initiative to create a separate path for small claims before Lagos State courts, where cases below a certain financial threshold are designated as “small claims” and are allowed to proceed based on more flexible procedural rules. The Policy’s primary objective is to offer an arbitral system that is quicker, more affordable, and free from the technicalities and complexities associated with traditional court procedures. protecting national interests. Critical Aspects of the Policy The small claims arbitration framework Under the Policy, the jurisdiction of the small claims system is clearly defined to encompass the following types of cases: • debt recovery cases not exceeding NGN5 million; • cases involving consumer rights violations where the amount claimed does not exceed NGN5 mil - lion. In the proposed framework, proceedings are intended to be heard before a judge, though legal representation for the parties is not mandatory. The entire process, from filing to the delivery of judgment, is expected to be completed within a maximum of 60 days. Judg - ments rendered through this pathway are enforceable in the same manner as any other court judgment and can be appealed to the Federal or State High Courts, • cases involving breach of contract; • landlord and tenant matters; and

signatory. The Policy generally seeks to: • reduce the burden on the court system;

569 CHAMBERS.COM

Powered by