NIGERIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Muyiwa Ogungbenro and Daniel Adegbamigbe, Olajide Oyewole LLP (DLA Piper Africa, Nigeria)
tives aimed at expediting arbitration proceedings and to establish specialised rules that will fast-track the determination of such cases. In line with this, the Policy strongly enjoins courts to refrain from entertaining actions in cases where the parties involved have already included an arbitration clause in their contract, unless there are compelling reasons not to refer the matter to arbitration. Courts are therefore encouraged to stay proceedings when it is clear that the matter should be resolved through arbitration, as agreed by the parties. This is in line with the most recent Supreme Court decisions on arbitration. In the case of UBA Plc v Triedent Consulting Ltd (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt 1903) 95, the apex court affirmatively decided that courts are mandated to stay proceedings where the arbitra - tion clause is mandatory and not merely permissive. Also in this case, the Supreme Court provided further guidance on the scope of the court’s intervention in arbitration. Specifically, the Supreme Court held the following: “Arbitration and litigation are not mutually exclusive. The court complements and supplements the func - tions and powers of the arbitrator; for example, by staying court proceedings in appropriate cases, or by issuing [a] subpoena, or by appointing arbitra - tors where the parties cannot agree or where a party defaults on appointment of arbitrators, and by enforc - ing awards or setting aside awards where necessary. In those cases, the court intervenes to ensure the proper functioning of arbitration.” To further streamline the resolution of arbitration-relat - ed cases, the Policy urges the heads of the courts to designate courts for arbitration and ADR matters. This will ensure that such matters are dealt with promptly and that specialised expertise is provided where nec - essary. Additionally, the judiciary is encouraged to develop a practice direction on arbitration and ADR. This will provide consistent guidance on the application of arbitration principles, ensuring that both courts and parties involved in disputes have a clear understand - ing of procedural expectations.
In a bid to deter delays, the Policy further empowers courts to impose punitive costs on lawyers and liti - gants who attempt to misuse the court system to frus - trate the arbitration or ADR process. This will ensure that the courts remain an effective forum for dispute resolution rather than a means of obstructing arbitra - tion proceedings. To reinforce the efficiency of the process, the Policy mandates that judicial proceedings arising from arbi - tration and ADR matters should be resolved within a maximum of 60 days. In cases of appeal, the Policy specifies that they should be resolved within 270 days. Finally, the Policy clarifies that all appeals stemming from arbitration and ADR decisions shall terminate at the Court of Appeal. This will ensure that disputes are finally settled without having to reach the Supreme Court, which seems to make arbitration take longer than litigation. This comprehensive approach, with its emphasis on specialised judicial practices, expedited timelines and consequences for obstructing arbitration processes, aims to create an efficient and reliable system for resolving arbitration and ADR matters in Nigeria. Flexibility in drafting arbitration clauses The Policy contains an important provision concerning the flexibility granted to federal and state ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) in the drafting of arbitration clauses. This flexibility is intended to allow these MDAs the autonomy to select the arbitration rules that will govern disputes involving them, provid - ing a more tailored approach to dispute resolution. The Policy seeks to give MDAs the opportunity to choose appropriate arbitration centres, including international, regional and national arbitral institutions such as the Lagos Court of Arbitration (LACIAC), the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) or others. This will ensure that government institutions are not restricted to a set of arbitration rules but can instead select a framework that best suits the dispute, foster - ing a more efficient and effective dispute resolution process. While this broadens the government institu - tions’ choices, it also gives more confidence to coun - terparties who deal with those institutions.
571 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook