NIGERIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Olasupo Shasore, Mofiyinfoluwa Enitan, Ibukun Fasoro and Bamidele Ikusika, Africa Law Practice NG & Company
ruling. This is the most common formal route to test jurisdiction in court during the proceedings. • After an award is rendered – a party may also chal - lenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction indirectly by seeking to set aside the award or resist its recognition and enforcement on the ground that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility Questions of Jurisdiction When a Nigerian court is invited to review a tribunal’s positive ruling on its own jurisdiction (under Section 14 (3) and (7) of the AMA), the review is generally con - ducted de novo. The court will not simply defer to the tribunal’s decision; it will independently examine whether the arbitration agreement is valid, covers the dispute, and binds the parties. This approach is consistent with international practice under the UNCI - TRAL Model Law, on which the AMA is largely based. At the enforcement or set-aside stage, courts also apply a full merits (de novo) review of jurisdiction if it is raised as a ground to set aside or refuse enforce - ment of an award. Questions of Admissibility In contrast, questions that go to the admissibility of a claim (rather than the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear it at all) are generally treated as falling within the tribu - nal’s exclusive domain. Nigerian courts have shown reluctance to interfere with procedural decisions or questions of timing, waiver, or compliance with pre- conditions, seeing these as matters of admissibility, not jurisdiction. In practice, courts adopt a more def - erential approach to such matters, declining to revisit the tribunal’s conclusions except in cases of clear excess of mandate or misconduct. 5.5 Breach of Arbitration Agreement Pro-Arbitration Judicial Approach Nigerian courts adopt a pro‑arbitration stance toward parties who commence court proceedings despite having agreed to arbitrate. This is reinforced by the AMA which largely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law. When a dispute comes before a court in breach of an arbitration agreement, the usual approach is for the defendant to promptly apply for a stay of proceedings
and request referral to arbitration. Provided the arbi - tration agreement is valid, operative, and capable of being performed, courts generally compel arbitration and stay their own proceedings. Reluctance to Entertain Parallel Litigation The courts recognise that permitting litigation to pro - ceed would undermine party autonomy and the effec - tiveness of the arbitration process; as a result, they are generally reluctant to allow parallel proceedings to continue. See M . V . Lupex v N . O . C . S . Ltd . (2003), 15 NWLR (Pt. 844) 469 where the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeal and Federal High Court which refused an application for stay pro - ceedings in a lawsuit pending reference to a London- seated arbitration. Exceptions and Procedural Discipline However, courts do expect the party relying on the arbitration agreement to act promptly as delay, waiver or conduct inconsistent with an intention to arbitrate can lead courts to refuse a stay. In practice, courts scrutinise the timing and conduct of the party seek - ing to enforce the arbitration agreement to ensure it has not participated substantially in the court action before seeking the stay. 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties Limited Circumstances Under Nigerian Law An arbitral tribunal generally lacks jurisdiction over individuals or entities that are not signatories to the arbitration agreement. However, Nigerian courts and tribunals may extend the effect of an arbitration agreement to non‑signatories where a non‑signatory so completely controls a signatory that it is appro - priate to disregard the separate legal personality; a party has expressly or impliedly authorised another to enter into the arbitration agreement on its behalf; a non‑signatory subsequently assumes obligations under the contract containing the arbitration clause or where a non‑signatory has conducted itself in a manner that makes it inequitable to deny being bound, such as actively participating in the arbitration. The doctrine upon which a non-signatory may be bound by an arbitration agreement has been examined and pronounced on by the Supreme Court in EMTS Ltd v AFDIN Ventures Ltd & Ors (2026), LPELR-83327 (SC).
658 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook