NIGERIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yussuf Akinola Oyebanjo, Temilade Oluwaseun Adepate, David Ekanem and Charles Anorondu, Streamsowers & Köhn
instance, in Raja v Nicholas van Hoogstraten [2007] EWHC 1743 (Ch), where an irregularity may result in the order being set aside. Furthermore, UK case law has played a significant role in clarifying the scope and flexibility of sequestra - tion. In Trafigura Pte Ltd v Emirates General Petroleum Corp ( EMARAT ) [2010] EWHC 3007 (Comm), the High Court affirmed that a writ of sequestration may be granted even where there is no evidence of assets within the jurisdiction and the claimant does not need to show that the defendant has property that can be seized under a sequestration. Similarly, in Touton Far East PTE Ltd v Shri Lal Mahal Ltd [2017] EWHC 621 (Comm), the court indicated that sequestration may extend to assets located outside the jurisdiction. Ear - lier authority such as Rose v Laskington [1990] 1 QB 562 also confirms that sequestration may be invoked even in lower courts (such as the county court) in cer - tain situations.
Notwithstanding this advanced framework, seques - tration in the UK remains a severe and exceptional remedy, and is therefore rarely used in practice, par - ticularly for enforcing monetary judgments. Courts typically prefer more efficient mechanisms such as third-party debt orders and writs of control, reserving sequestration for instances of serious or persistent non-compliance. Conclusion Sequestration remains a legitimate and potentially viable mechanism for enforcing judgments in Nigeria. Its enduring value lies in its ability to place economic pressure on a debtor while preserving property value under judicial control. In doctrinal terms, it is firmly embedded in the Nigerian enforcement framework. In practical terms, it is underused and requires adequate knowledge for proper utilisation.
334 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook