Source: http://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-dispute-resolution-review-edition-9/1140973/nigeria
Timestamp: 2017-11-22 12:53:23
Document Index: 273151722

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 821', 'art 906', 'art) 897', 'art 1062', 'art 852', 'art 1115', 'art 516', 'art 765']

Nigeria - The Dispute Resolution Review - Edition 9 - The Law Reviews
In addition, there are also special courts and tribunals such as the National Industrial Court, the Investment and Securities Tribunal5 and the Tax Appeal Tribunal.6 Appeals from the latter two lie with the high court. The National Industrial Court began as an inferior court from which appeals went to the high court. However, under a constitutional amendment that took effect on 4 March 2011, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from the workplace, conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employees, workers and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith. Appeal from the National Industrial Court lies with the Court of Appeal only on questions of fundamental rights as contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution of Nigeria. The jurisdiction of all the high courts is set out in the Constitution, with the Federal High Court possessing exclusive jurisdiction in certain areas such as admiralty, aviation, taxation, revenue, trademarks, patent rights and corporate matters. State high courts have unlimited jurisdiction over all other matters where the Federal High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction. In Lagos State, the high court is divided into five geographical judicial divisions, and into six subdivisions according to subject matter. There is no maximum number of judges in the high court, and there are presently 48 judges in the Lagos State High Court.
The framework governing ADR in Nigeria includes statute, case law, customary law and general principles of law. Nigeria has ratified and enacted into law the New York Convention7 and the ICSID Convention.8 Nigeria’s federal arbitration statute is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on arbitration. Lagos State is the only state in the federation that has enacted its own arbitration statute.9 Nigeria is also a member of the World Trade Organization, which also provides for the settlement of disputes between states.
Over the last year the focus of the courts appears to have been on political matters, thus there are no recent decisions that the authors consider to be material for inclusion here. The appellate courts have continued to be dominated by political cases related to elections that were held in 2015, and have continued to assign more time for the hearing of such actions. This has resulted in a worsening of the, already slow, process of adjudication in the courts.
Many states10 in the federation have reviewed the civil procedure rules applicable in their high courts along the lines of the review carried out by Lagos State11 in the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004. As indicated above, Lagos State has published new civil procedure rules for the High Court of Lagos State, which took effect on 1 January 2013. Specifically, the most recently introduced rules all aim to discourage frivolous litigation and expedite dispute resolution by means of several novel provisions. The new Lagos Rules are used as a reference below.
The Lagos State Chief Judge has, pursuant to the Lagos Rules, issued practice directions for a fast-track procedure. Cases assigned to the fast-track route are to be concluded within eight months from their commencement, and for a case to qualify for the fast-track procedure it must be for a claim (or counterclaim) of a minimum of 100 million naira; involve at least one party who is a non-resident investor in Nigeria; or involve a mortgage transaction.12 All the procedures provided for in the fast-track programme stipulate time frames shorter than those provided for in regular proceedings. For example, the pretrial conference period is limited to just 30 days, when for the regular procedure it lasts three months,13 and final judgment is to be delivered within 60 days of closing addresses, whereas for regular procedures it is 90 days. Although the application of these new rules has resulted in speedier resolution of applicable rules, the targets set by the rules are not being met by the courts.
All court rules provide for the bringing of urgent applications, which may be brought without notice (ex parte) against the adversary in appropriate circumstances, and the seeking of interim preservative orders to last until the determination of a subsequent similar application notified to the adversary.14 Where a party apprehends an occurrence that may irreparably damage his or her interests, the rules require him or her to bring his or her application (setting out his or her interests and the dangers apprehended in an accompanying affidavit) without delay to ensure an expedited hearing.
Conversely, to discourage parties that obtain an interim restraining order from employing time-wasting tactics to prolong the order, the rules also stipulate the length of an ex parte order to be seven days15 subject to extension by another seven days on application or after hearing.16
The most notable innovation of the new court rules is the requirement for a party to attach to his or her originating processes all documentary evidence and statements of witnesses to establish a claim or defence.17 This enables the adversary to have a fair picture of the claim and the evidence by which it would be proved. It also enables the court to assess the strength or otherwise of the claim. The court could then direct that the parties explore the possibilities of arbitration by referring them to the arbitration or mediation arm of the court, where the compromise effort could be professionally directed. In addition, filing charges for new cases are assessed at a percentage of the sum being claimed, and this new practice has made it more expensive for plaintiffs to file actions. The aim is to deter all but the most serious litigants.
Another novel provision of the new rules is the requirement of filing written briefs of argument in respect of motions and responses thereto18 with a stipulated time frame for all filings, failing which, penalty payments would become due for each day of default.19
The final noteworthy innovation of the new rules for treatment here is with regard to the treatment of costs. Previously, Nigerian courts rarely, if ever, awarded costs remotely related to the expenditure incurred by a successful litigant. Costs awarded were, in the main, merely nominal and of little value. Indeed, appellate courts continue to award what are, essentially, nominal costs. In many high courts now, the previous policy has been reversed by the introduction of the new rules.20
Citizens’ rights to represent themselves in proceedings before a court are contained in the Constitution as part of the right to fair hearing.21 This provision permits all natural persons to prosecute their cases or defend cases against them without counsel if they so choose.
The question as to the possibility of a non-natural person appearing in court to handle proceedings was settled by the Supreme Court in Mode (Nig) Ltd v. UBA Plc.22 In that case, the appellant company’s director sought to argue the appeal on behalf of the company as the company was unable to afford counsel. The Court ruled that a litigant may appear in person, but a company is not in the same position as a natural person and thus could not be represented by its director or officer and only by counsel, as the rules of court do not contemplate that a company can sue or appear in person.
The various rules of courts in Nigeria contain similar provisions for service of process on parties outside their primary jurisdictions.23 The State High Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the physical territory of that state, but the Federal High Court has nationwide jurisdiction, so outside jurisdiction for it is outside Nigeria.24 However, the rules ordinarily provide that service on natural persons shall be personal; that is, the delivery of process physically on the defendant,25 and for non-natural persons by delivering same on specified categories of principal officers at designated addresses of such entities.26 However, regarding service out of the jurisdiction, the rules make no distinction between the mode of service on natural and non-natural defendants, but it is widely accepted that the modes of service stipulated in Rules 6 and 8 would apply, and in the event of failure of such service the court could order substituted service upon application by the plaintiff.
As an example, the provisions of Order 8 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 have laid down the procedure for the service of process on both natural and unnatural persons outside the jurisdiction.27
Under the Lagos Rules, a judge may permit service of process out of Nigeria where the entire claim relates to land situated within the jurisdiction (Lagos State); or where the suit calls for the construction of an instrument affecting land or hereditament28 situated within the jurisdiction; or if the relief sought is against any person domiciled or resident within the jurisdiction; or if the claim is for the administration of the estate of a deceased person who was ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction at the time of death; or the claim is brought to enforce a contract against a defendant resident within jurisdiction, or if said contract was made within or by an agent within the jurisdiction, etc.29
Furthermore, where parties have by their contract prescribed the mode or place of service, or the person that may serve or the person who may be served, the court will enforce the same.30
For originating processes, the rules require service by court bailiffs or other accredited process servers.31 Parties are expected to be served personally except where this has proved impossible, whereupon the plaintiff could apply for substituted service as discussed above. However, where a party has instructed counsel that has entered appearance to the action, processes meant for service out of the jurisdiction could be properly served on counsel.
Judgments of courts outside Nigeria are enforceable in Nigeria, but this is regulated by two statutes – the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act of 1958 (the 1922 Ordinance) and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act of 1960 (the 1960 Act). The applicability of both statutes to foreign judgment enforcement is another issue entirely. Decisions of the Supreme Court have indicated that the 1922 Ordinance regulates only judgments of courts from the ‘United Kingdom and other parts of Her Majesty’s Dominions and Territories under Her Majesty’s protection’,32 while the 1960 Act regulates the enforcement of judgments from all other countries that extend reciprocity to judgments of Nigerian courts if so proclaimed by the Federal Minister of Justice.33 The Supreme Court, however, has held this part of the 1990 Act still to be inoperative because the Minister of Justice is yet to make the proclamation required for its commencement.34 Therefore, court judgments from the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s former dominions and protected territories and Commonwealth countries can currently be registered and enforced in Nigeria under the 1922 Ordinance. Judgments from other countries are only enforceable within 12 months of their delivery (or such a longer period as may be granted by the court) under Section 10(a) of the 1960 Act by virtue of statute until the Minister of Justice makes the necessary declaration. Such judgments may, however, be enforceable under common law by an action in court.35
The circumstances in which courts in Nigeria may render assistance to foreign courts are set out in the rules of the high courts. These provisions occur with little or no variation in the rules of the various state courts. Furthermore, the Federal High Court rules also contain similar provisions regarding when a court in Nigeria may render assistance to a foreign court.36
Most often, the kind of assistance courts in Nigeria render to foreign courts is limited to granting leave to effect the service of foreign process on a resident within the jurisdiction of the court.37 A letter of request is required from the court or tribunal for service on any person who is to be directed to the Attorney General of the Federation to effect service. Two copies of the processes or citation must be served. On payment of the approved amount, the process or citation shall be served on the person unless otherwise directed by the judge.38
Generally, Section 36(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the rules of court and other enactments expressly make it mandatory for proceedings of court to be held in public.39 Members of the public have unfettered access to attend and observe any ongoing court proceedings. This right of access does not, however, give members of the public an automatic right to obtain information in relation to court proceedings. A citizen desiring information regarding specific proceedings must comply with the prescribed application process.
However, there are qualified exceptions to this constitutional provision, one of which is Section 36(4),40 which states:
The Legal Practitioners (Remuneration for Legal Documentation and other Land Matters) Order 1991 regulates the remuneration of legal practitioners in the preparation of legal documentations and other land matters.41 These fees are fixed and non-negotiable.42 However, instances where the scale is not applied are frequent, and these pass with little, if any, attempt to prevent the practice.
A conditional fee arrangement is permissible depending on the agreement between the parties and provided it is not champertous, which would make it void and unenforceable.43
The practice of establishing Chinese walls is a possible departure from the long-standing rule against one lawyer acting for both sides in a dispute.44
Rule 15(2)(a) specifically provides that a lawyer, in representing a client, must keep strictly within the law notwithstanding any contrary instruction by the client and, if the client insists on a breach of the law, the lawyer shall withdraw his or her service. The lawyer is also under the obligation to endeavour to restrain and prevent the client from committing the breach of law.45
Nigeria’s legal system, being based on English principles of common law and equity, also recognises the common law principles regarding privilege, which involve some advantages, special rights, exemptions or immunity enjoyed by an individual or class of persons as opposed to a right enjoyed by all.46 In Nigeria, however, certain types of privilege receive statutory protection, having been enacted into Nigeria’s Evidence Act.47 In Nigeria, privilege attaches only as provided for in the Evidence Ordinance. Thus, no privilege attaches to communication between priest and penitent or doctor and patient, spousal communications where couples were not married under the statute, Islamic law and common law. Under common law, a solicitor may not disclose the contents or the condition of any document that he or she has become acquainted with in the course of and for the purpose of such employment. The privilege is that of the client and not of the legal practitioner and, as such, can only be waived by the client. The right of confidentiality guaranteed by Section 170(1) of the Evidence Act is absolute, as the courts cannot compel counsel to disclose information given to them by a client in confidence.48
The only documentary evidence admissible in Nigerian courts is evidence relevant to prove facts in issue. Relevance is the foundation of admissibility in this jurisdiction,49 and if the court finds a document to be irrelevant to the determination of the issues in dispute then such a document would be rejected and so marked.
Relevance of evidence for the purpose of admissibility in proceedings occurs in varying degrees, thus some relevant facts may not be receivable in evidence or admissible because the court finds them to be remotely relevant.50 Furthermore, the relevance of some documents does not automatically make that document receivable in evidence; it only becomes admissible when it passes the tests of admissibility prescribed by the evidence ordinance (for example, if it is a copy of a public document). It only becomes admissible if it is shown that it is properly issued from proper custody or if proper foundation was laid for its admissibility.51
Arbitration in Nigeria is primarily governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Decree,52 which is a federal statute. However, in 2009, the Lagos State House of Assembly enacted an Arbitration Law, in force in Lagos State, providing a different statutory framework for the conduct of arbitration in Lagos State. The constitutional basis upon which the Lagos State House of Assembly enacted the legislation is that the subject of the legislation – commercial contracts – is a residual matter,53 not being contained in the legislative lists in the second schedule to the Constitution.
There is no right of appeal available to a party under either the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or the Lagos State Arbitration Law. An award may only be set aside for reasons of misconduct or other procedural irregularity by the courts.54
The New York Convention applies to arbitration in Nigeria. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act incorporates the New York Convention of 1958, which is particularly set out as the Second Schedule to the Act.55
Recent decisions from the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja have raised issues about the types of cases that are arbitrable in domestic arbitration in Nigeria.56 Certain commentators appear to have taken the view that Nigerian courts have improperly intervened in international arbitration, though we do not believe this is the case.57
In Lagos State, the Practice Direction of the Lagos Multi-Door Court House (the ADR Centre), states that, on referral to any of the ADR methods, the ADR sessions shall be administered in accordance with the Negotiation and Conflict Management Group (NCMG) Mediation Procedure Rules 2002 or the NCMG Arbitration Procedure Rules 2002.58
The year 2016 was challenging for Nigeria and the country’s legal profession. Anti-corruption litigation appears to have dominated the landscape as the Buhari-led regime seems to have concentrated more on the crippling corruption that has placed the nation in a deprived political and economic situation, and was widely alleged to have been perpetrated by previous political and military leaders.
Among the prominent ongoing corruption cases that commenced in 2016 was the arraignment of the Senate President (Bukola Saraki) by the Code of Conduct Bureau for alleged anticipatory declaring of assets owned while he was Governor of Kwara state in 2003. He was also accused of operating a foreign bank account while he was Governor, a punishable offence under the code of conduct act for public office-holders.
The legal profession also has its own share of anti-corruption litigation, as the crusade ensured that judges, including Supreme Court justices, were arrested in late 2016 for allegations of bribery and corruption. A number of those judges have been arraigned before the court.
It is, however, pertinent to mention that the human rights community and various advocate groups have criticised the attitude of the Buhari-led administration towards respect for the courts’ decisions pertaining to the liberty of suspects in the state’s custody. A prominent example is the continued detention of Sambo Dasuki; (the former National Security Adviser) who is standing trial for allegedly laundering and diverting a US$2.1 billion arms fund, despite having been granted bail by the national and regional courts.
Nonetheless, widespread support for the anti-corruption drive, as well as hunger for ‘change’ in Nigeria, will likely ensure that 2017 is set to be a busy year for reforms in terms of the judiciary; there is also an expectation of change of government, at both executive and legislative levels.
2 Section 1, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. See also the Court of Appeal decisions in Attorney General, Oyo State v. Nigerian Labour Congress 2003 8 NWLR Part 821 1 and Orhiunu v. Federal Government of Nigeria 2005 1 NWLR Part 906 39.
7 In the second schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
8 Decree No. 49 of 1969 Constitution.
9 Lagos State Arbitration Law No. 18, Chapter A342, 2009.
10 The Federation of Nigeria is made up of 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory.
11 The Lagos State High Court Rules are preferable as their application is directed towards the achievement of a just, efficient and speedy dispensation of justice.
12 See paragraph 2 of the Practice Directions on Fast Track Procedure.
13 See paragraph 7 of the Practice Directions on Fast Track Procedure.
14 See Order 38, Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 and Order 9, Rule 8 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure) Rules, 2000.
15 See Order 39, Rule 3 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012.
16 See Order 39, Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012.
17 See Order 3, Rule 2(1) of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012.
18 See Order 39, Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012.
19 See Order 44, Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012.
20 See Order 49, Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012.
21 See Section 36(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.
22 2004 15 NWLR (Part) 897 p. 542.
23 See Order 8 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000.
24 See Order 6, Rule 5 of the Federal High Court Rules.
25 See Order 13, Rule 2 of the Federal High Court Rules.
26 See Order 13, Rules 6 and 8 of the Federal High Court Rules.
28 The said provision of the Lagos State Civil Procedure 2012, particularly Order 8 Rule 1, is in reference to land or any property that can be inherited; that is, anything that passes through intestacy. In other words, a judge may allow any originating process or other process to be served outside Nigeria where the property to be inherited is within its jurisdiction.
29 See Order 8, Rule 1 (a–l).
30 See Order 8, Rule 2 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012.
31 See Order 13, Rule 13 of the Federal High Court Rules.
32 See the introductory and descriptive part of the 1958 Ordinance.
33 See Witt & Busch Ltd v. Dale Power Systems Plc 2007 17 NWLR Part 1062 1.
34 Section 3(1) Part I of the 1990 Act. See Witt & Busch Ltd v. Dale Power Systems Plc, supra.
35 See the Supreme Court decision in Macauley v. RZB Austria (2003) 18 NWLR Part 852 282 and the Court of Appeal decision in Teleglobe America Inc v. 21st Century Tech Ltd (2008) 17 NWLR Part 1115 108.
36 See Order 13, Rule 23 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000.
39 See Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
40 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
41 Legal practitioners (Remuneration for Legal Documentation and other Land matters) Order 1991 published in No. 40 Vol. 78 Gazette of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
42 Order 7, Section 1 of the Legal Practitioners (Remuneration for Legal Documentation and other Land matters) Order, supra.
43 See Oyo v. Mercantile Bank (Nig) Ltd, supra, paragraphs B–C.
44 See Smith v. Mansi, 1962 3 All ER 857.
45 See Rule 15(2)(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (2007).
46 See Words and Phrases Legally Defined, Volume 3, third edition, p. 46, Butterworths; and Black’s Law Dictionary, eighth edition, p. 1234, Thomson West.
47 For example, see Sections 161(3), 166, 168, 170, 174 and 176 of the Act.
48 Abubakar v. Chuks [2007] 18 NWLR.
49 See Sections 6 and 10 of the Evidence Act and also Agunbiade v. Sasegbon 1968 5 NSCC p. 147 at 150.
50 Ogunonzee v. the State 1997 8 NWLR Part 516 566 at 588.
51 Jacob v. AkwaIbom State 2002 7 NWLR Part 765 p. 18 at 39.
52 Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
53 Under the Nigerian Constitution, legislative powers are shared between the federal and state legislatures. While the federal legislature is empowered to make laws in respect of matters contained in the exclusive and concurrent legislative lists, state legislators are empowered to make laws in respect of matters not contained in the exclusive legislative list. Such matters include those on the concurrent legislative list (to the extent that the federal legislatures have not made any law in respect thereto). All other matters are considered to be ‘residual’ matters, and are matters in respect of which only the states may legislate.
54 See Sections 30 and 32 of the Arbitration Act.
55 See Schedule II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
56 Federal Inland Revenue Service v. NNPC & 2 Ors (2012) 6 TLRN 1 and Federal Inland Revenue Service 4 Ors (2012) 6 TLRN 87.
57 Comments by Emmanuel Gaillard at the ICCA Conference in Singapore in June 2012.
58 See the Lagos Multi-Door Court House, The ADR Centre Practice Direction pursuant to Section 274 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.