NIGERIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Olasupo Shasore, Mofiyinfoluwa Enitan, Ibukun Fasoro and Bamidele Ikusika, Africa Law Practice NG & Company
main contract does not, by itself, affect the validity of the arbitration clause. This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in U . B . A . Plc v Triedent Con- sulting Ltd . (2023), 14 NWLR (Pt. 1903) 95 (P. 131, paragraphs B–D). 4. The Arbitral Tribunal 4.1 Limits on Selection Limits on Party Autonomy in the Appointment of Arbitrators Nigerian law recognises and strongly protects the principle of party autonomy in choosing arbitrators. Under the AMA, parties are generally free to deter - mine the number of arbitrators, the procedure for their appointment, and the qualifications they must pos - sess. However, there are a few important limits designed to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the arbitration process. • All arbitrators must be impartial and independent. If there are justifiable doubts about an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, that arbitrator may be challenged under Sections 7 (5)(b) and 8 (1) of the AMA. • Arbitrators must have the legal capacity to act; accordingly, minors or persons declared of unsound mind cannot validly be appointed. • If the parties fail to agree on the appointment pro - cedure, the Act provides default mechanisms for the appointment through an appointing authority or the court under Section 7 of the AMA. 4.2 Default Procedures Default Procedure for Appointment of Arbitrators Under Section 7 of the AMA, the following fallback mechanisms apply if the parties’ chosen method for the appointment of arbitrator(s) fails: • Where the arbitration is to be decided by three arbitrators, and the parties fail to appoint one arbitrator each (or the two appointed arbitrators fail to appoint the third), a party may request the court or designated appointing authority to make the necessary appointment.
• Where the arbitration is to be decided by a sole arbitrator, and the parties cannot agree on that person, either party may similarly apply to the court or appointing authority to step in. • If multiple claimants and/or multiple respondents cannot jointly appoint their co‑arbitrators, any party may request the court or appointing authority to appoint all three members of the tribunal. 4.3 Court Intervention Judicial Intervention in the Selection of Arbitrators Under the AMA, courts (or designated appointing authorities) can intervene in the selection of arbitra - tors, but only in clearly defined and limited circum - stances such as where: • parties fail to agree on a sole arbitrator; • each party fails to appoint its arbitrator within the agreed time; • the two party‑appointed arbitrators fail to appoint the presiding arbitrator; or • in multiparty arbitrations, if the parties fail to jointly appoint arbitrators. Nigerian courts have no power to choose arbitrators if the parties’ agreed appointment procedure is work - ing, or to review the merits of an appointment deci - sion made according to that procedure. The courts’ power is strictly procedural and supportive: it ensures that arbitration can proceed where the parties’ own mechanism has failed. 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators in Nigeria The AMA under Sections 8–10 contains specific pro - visions on the challenge and removal of arbitrators, aligning with international practice under the UNCI - TRAL Model Law. These grounds include justifiable doubts about impartiality or independence; failure to possess agreed qualifications; or incapacity or failure to act. Procedure for Challenge A party must raise the challenge within 14 days of becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to it. The tribunal decides the challenge initially. If rejected, the challenging party may apply to the High Court or an agreed appointing authority for a final decision.
656 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook