INTRODUCTION
The question of whether Nigerian courts possess the authority to set aside a foreign arbitral award is an issue that directly engages the doctrines of seat of arbitration, party autonomy, and the interplay between domesticated international treaties and municipal law. While Nigerian courts are empowered to set aside awards seated within Nigeria, the supervisory jurisdiction over foreign-seated arbitral awards is strictly limited. The enforceability and challenge of foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria has long been a contentious area of law, balancing respect for international arbitration autonomy with domestic courts’ supervisory powers. A key issue is whether Nigerian courts have jurisdiction to set aside foreign-seated arbitral awards under foreign arbitration rules and in a foreign seat. In Oil & Industrial Services Ltd v Hempel Paints (South Africa) Pty Ltd [1], the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Division, provided important clarification on this issue by reaffirming the limits of Nigerian court powers in such cases.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Court of Appeal in Baker Marina (Nig.) Ltd. V. Danoscurole Cont. Inc.[2] Has explained that the setting aside of an arbitral award renders the whole arbitration proceedings null and void.
Also, the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (“AMA”)[3] states that an arbitral award, irrespective of the country in which it is made, is binding and may be enforced by Nigerian courts on written application. Section 58(2)(a)(viii) provides that a court may refuse recognition or enforcement if the award “has not yet become binding or has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made.” This mirrors Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention. The act further sets out grounds and procedures for setting aside (annulling) arbitral awards. Notably, the AMA’s challenge grounds are limited and closely aligned with the Model Law and Convention principles.
Nigeria is a signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention 1958”), which has been incorporated into domestic law through the AMA’s Second Schedule. The Convention generally requires contracting states to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, but also provides limited defenses. Article V(1)(e) of the convention provides that;
“A court may refuse recognition and enforcement if “the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made.”
Although Article V does not speak in terms of jurisdiction to set aside awards, its terms have been interpreted to define the boundary between recognition/refusal of enforcement and jurisdiction to annul the award itself.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: OIL & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LTD V HEMPEL PAINTS (SOUTH AFRICA) PTY LTD
In the Hempel case, the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules, with the seat of arbitration in London, England. An LCIA award was issued in favor of Hempel. Hempel then applied to the High Court of Rivers State, Nigeria for enforcement. OIS opposed the enforcement and separately sought to set aside the LCIA award in Nigeria, alleging arbitrator misconduct.
The High Court initially held that, based on Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention as domesticated, it lacked jurisdiction to set aside a foreign-seated award, since that power lay with courts at the seat of arbitration, in this case being England. The court nevertheless considered the set-aside application on the merits and dismissed it.
OIS appealed to the Court of Appeal, principally challenging the jurisdiction ruling. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s view that:
- Nigerian courts do not have jurisdiction to set aside foreign-seated arbitral awards because they do not have supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings seated outside Nigeria; and
- Only the courts of the seat of arbitration here, which is the English courts have the jurisdiction to annul awards rendered under that seat.
The court reasoned that where parties agree on a foreign seat (London) as the locus of arbitration and finality, it is untenable for Nigerian courts to exercise annulment powers over an award generated in that seat. Recognition or enforcement in Nigeria is distinct from annulment; Nigerian courts may refuse enforcement, but cannot sit in judgment on the substantive validity of a foreign award.
Importantly, the judgment distanced itself from an earlier conflicting decision, Limak v. Sahelian Energy & Integrated Services Ltd,[4] where an Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal had held that Nigerian courts were empowered to set aside foreign awards irrespective of their seat. Hempel marks a return to orthodox international arbitration doctrine that respects the jurisdictional primacy of the seat.
JUDICIAL APPROACH/POWER AND SEAT OF ARBITRATION
Statutes enacted by the National Assembly to give effect to Nigeria’s treaty obligations constitute legislation with international flavour. By virtue of this character, where there exists any inconsistency between such domesticated international instruments and other municipal statutes, the provisions of the former ought to prevail. This position is anchored on the presumption that the legislature does not intend to act in breach of Nigeria’s international obligations. Accordingly, domesticated international statutes are accorded greater normative force than ordinary municipal enactments and are to be preferred in judicial interpretation where conflicts arise.[5]
The concept of the seat of arbitration is fundamental to the arbitral process, as it denotes the legal jurisdiction in which the arbitration is anchored, irrespective of where hearings are physically conducted. The courts of the seat exercise supervisory (curial) jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings[6], including oversight of procedural fairness, interim measures, and the power to set aside or annul the final award. Consequently, it is the law of the seat that governs critical aspects of the arbitration, commonly referred to as the lex arbitri. Where an arbitration is seated outside Nigeria, Nigerian courts do not possess supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process or the validity of the award; their role is limited strictly to issues of recognition and enforcement in accordance with applicable statutes and international conventions.
This distinction underscores the difference between setting aside an arbitral award and recognition or enforcement of an award. An application to set aside an award goes to the very legal validity of the award and can only be entertained by the courts of the seat of arbitration. In contrast, recognition and enforcement proceedings are concerned solely with giving effect to an award in a jurisdiction other than the seat and do not permit a rehearing of the merits or a collateral attack on the award.
Furthermore, even in respect of domestic or Nigeria-seated arbitrations where Nigerian courts do possess set-aside jurisdiction, the courts have adopted a policy of judicial restraint. In NNPC v. Fung Tai Engineering Co. Ltd.[7], the Supreme Court cautioned that courts must not be over-ready to interfere with arbitral awards freely entered into by parties who elected their own tribunal, except where there is something “radically wrong” in the proceedings. This approach reflects the broader pro-arbitration policy of upholding party autonomy and preserving the finality of arbitral awards.
CONCLUSION
The combined effect of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, the New York Convention 1958 (as domesticated in Nigeria), and recent appellate authority such as OIS v. Hempel clearly delineates the limits of Nigerian judicial intervention in respect of foreign-seated arbitral awards. Under this regime, the competence to annul or set aside an award is territorially anchored to the juridical seat of arbitration, being the legal order that confers procedural law upon the arbitral process. Nigerian courts, not being courts of the seat in such circumstances, are therefore bereft of jurisdiction to entertain applications seeking to set aside or nullify foreign awards, as such relief would amount to an impermissible exercise of supervisory authority over proceedings governed by a foreign lex arbitri. The only role open to Nigerian courts in relation to such awards is at the post-award stage, strictly within the confines of recognition and enforcement proceedings, and even then, only on the narrow and exhaustive grounds permitted by the Convention and incorporated into domestic legislation.
By confining annulment powers to the courts of the seat, the law preserves the predictability and coherence of arbitral supervision and protects the legitimate expectations of parties who deliberately selected a foreign seat with its attendant procedural safeguards. Conversely, to permit non-seat courts to assume annulment jurisdiction would undermine the stability of international arbitral awards and invite forum shopping, thereby weakening confidence in Nigeria as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The current statutory and judicial posture therefore strikes a principled balance: while Nigerian courts retain the sovereign right to refuse enforcement on Convention-compliant grounds, they must equally respect the exclusive supervisory competence of the courts of the seat.
Please note that the foregoing does not in any way constitute legal advice. Kindly contact the authors for any legal advice on the subject matter
Please do not treat the foregoing as legal advice as it only represents the public commentary views of the authors. All enquiries about this should please be directed at the key contacts
