{"id":290228,"date":"2026-05-18T16:14:17","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T14:14:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290228"},"modified":"2026-05-18T16:14:17","modified_gmt":"2026-05-18T14:14:17","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-nigeria","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/18\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-nigeria\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review – Nigeria"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Ifeoma Solanke<\/strong>, Litigation and Arbitration Attorney at Templars<\/strong><\/a>
Faith Oyewale<\/strong>, International Arbitration Trainee at Quinn Emanuel<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Nigerian arbitration landscape in 2025 was shaped less by new legislation but by how courts and arbitral tribunals applied existing legislation in practice. The year reflects a clear effort to balance finality and enforcement with procedural fairness, as courts define the extent of their intervention in arbitral proceedings. The\u00a0National Policy on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (\u201cADR<\/strong>\u201d) 2024<\/a>\u00a0continues to show the policy direction of Nigeria\u2019s intention to strengthen arbitration and ADR across domestic and international commercial disputes. These trends signal a maturing arbitration landscape focused on certainty, efficiency, and legitimacy.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this review, we provide a high-level summary of the significant developments that have occurred over the past year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Market Highlights<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

East Africa Arbitration Conference 2025<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In September 2025, Abuja hosted the\u00a012th<\/sup>\u00a0East Africa International Arbitration Conference<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cEAIAC 2025<\/strong>\u201d), underscoring Nigeria\u2019s significant role in dispute resolution in Africa. The theme of the conference was \u201cArbitrating in Times of Global Uncertainty and the Race for Natural Resources<\/em><\/strong>,\u201d bringing together key arbitration players, together to discuss key challenges facing arbitration amid geopolitical volatility and intense competition over natural resources. This was the first time EAIAC was hosted outside East Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the two-day event, participants engaged in high-level panels on sanction-related disputes, geopolitics and arbitration, pan-African dispute mechanisms, and the opportunities and practicalities of cross-border arbitration in resource-driven sectors. The conference also featured thought-leadership sessions, fireside chats, and an Oxford-style debate, providing a platform for robust dialogue on improving arbitration frameworks across African jurisdictions. The conference further strengthened regional integration, fostering collaboration between East and West African arbitration communities and highlighting the strategic importance of arbitration in supporting investment certainty and commercial dispute management across Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Legislative Developments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The National Policy on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 2024<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0National Policy on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (\u201cADR<\/strong>\u201d) 2024<\/a>, officially unveiled by the Federal Ministry of Justice provides a comprehensive framework designed to strengthen arbitration and ADR across domestic and international commercial disputes, enhance judicial support for arbitration agreements, and align Nigeria\u2019s dispute resolution regime with global best practices under instruments like the\u00a0UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985<\/a>) and the\u00a0New York Convention (1958)<\/a>. It represents a strategic effort to institutionalise ADR, broaden its utilisation, and reinforce confidence in arbitration as a reliable dispute resolution mechanism.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Policy focuses on promoting Nigeria as a preferred seat and venue for arbitration by encouraging parties, especially government Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (\u201cMDAs<\/strong>\u201d) to choose arbitration within Nigeria and by supporting judicial practices that uphold arbitration agreements and limit unnecessary court interference. It also proposes the establishment of small claims arbitration and mandates transparent registers for arbitrations involving MDAs to foster accountability and consistency. By encouraging the use of ADR mechanisms at multi-door courthouses and enhancing specialised ADR infrastructure, the Policy seeks to reduce reliance on foreign venues and strengthen local adjudicative capacity.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To support its objectives, the Policy emphasises judicial efficiency and predictability by calling for strict timelines for court proceedings related to arbitration and ADR, punitive measures against obstructive litigation tactics, and specialised judicial divisions dedicated to arbitration matters. It also calls for the creation and strengthening of ADR centres, as well as the development of rules and practice directions to streamline arbitration-related judicial processes. By integrating these measures into national dispute resolution practice, the Policy aims to boost investor confidence, retain commercial disputes within Nigeria, and contribute to the country\u2019s broader economic and legal reform agenda. The Policy will be implemented for 5 years and thereafter be reviewed to reflect the growing trends in arbitration and ADR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Influence of the English Arbitration Act 2025 on Nigerian Arbitration Practice<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A defining arbitration trend in Nigeria in 2025 has been the renewed and intensified influence of English arbitration law, following the coming into force of the\u00a0English Arbitration Act 2025<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cAA<\/strong>\u201d) Given the continued dominance of English law as the governing choice of law and London as a preferred seat in Nigeria-related commercial contracts, the reforms introduced by the AA have had immediate relevance for Nigerian arbitration users and practitioners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The AA introduces targeted reforms aimed at enhancing certainty, efficiency, and cost control in arbitration proceedings. These reforms have prompted renewed scrutiny of\u00a0Nigeria\u2019s Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cAMA<\/strong>\u201d), particularly in areas where the AMA remains silent or underdeveloped. Key aspects Nigeria can learn from include AA\u2019s clarification that, where the arbitration agreement is silent on its governing law, the law of the seat governs the arbitration agreement; expanded arbitrator immunity; refined limits on court intervention in jurisdictional challenges; and the introduction of a tribunal\u2019s power to award costs for unmeritorious claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, Nigerian courts have historically looked to English law to fill gaps in domestic arbitration law. The enactment of the AA has therefore reshaped the persuasive landscape, raising questions as to whether legislative amendments to the AMA may be required for clarity and alignment with international best practice. For Nigerian stakeholders, the AA 2025 has become both a reference point and a benchmark, reinforcing the need for ongoing reform, judicial consistency, and legislative responsiveness if Nigeria is to consolidate its position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Significant Cases<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Judicial Resistance to Merit-Based Challenges of Arbitral Awards<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Nigerian Supreme Court in NICON Insurance Ltd v. Brighthouse Estate Ltd., <\/strong><\/em>(2025) 8 NWLR (Pt 1993) 469, adopted a narrow and disciplined interpretation of \u201cmisconduct\u201d as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award under the former Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which remains applicable to old cases. In that case, following a favourable award to Brighthouse Estate Limited, NICON Insurance Ltd sought to set aside the award on grounds of misconduct, on the basis that the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction and improperly evaluated evidence. The courts at both first instance and on appeal rejected these arguments, holding that dissatisfaction with an arbitrator\u2019s reasoning, evidential assessment, or conclusions does not amount to misconduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court emphasised that misconduct must be confined to serious procedural or ethical breaches such as corruption, bias, or violations of natural justice that fundamentally undermine the arbitral process. In doing so, the court reinforced the principle that arbitration is not subject to appellate review on the merits and that post-award challenges should not serve as a substitute for appeals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision also underscores another emerging trend: procedural waiver and estoppel<\/em> in arbitration-related litigation. The Supreme Court held that a party that participates fully in arbitral proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections promptly cannot later seek to invalidate the award on that basis. This reinforces the expectation that parties must raise procedural objections promptly or risk forfeiting them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case reflects Nigeria\u2019s continued alignment with pro-enforcement and finality-driven international arbitration standards, consistent with the New York Convention. Overall, Nigerian courts are increasingly unwilling to entertain disguised appeals against arbitral awards, reserving intervention for truly exceptional cases where the integrity of the arbitral process is demonstrably compromised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bayshore Technologies Ltd v. Green Fuels Ltd (FHC\/L\/CS\/377\/2025, 10 April 2025)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In Bayshore v. Green Fuels<\/em>, the Federal High Court reaffirmed the Nigerian courts\u2019 willingness to intervene in arbitral proceedings where there is a breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment of parties. During an ongoing arbitration, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order 5, granting all of Green Fuels Ltd\u2019s document production requests against Bayshore. Subsequently, by Procedural Order 8, the Tribunal refused almost all of Bayshore\u2019s reciprocal document requests against Green Fuels Ltd, allowing only a limited request relating to a maintenance schedule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bayshore challenged Procedural Order 8 before the Federal High Court, contending that the Tribunal\u2019s refusal undermined Bayshore\u2019s ability to fairly present its case and violated section 30 of the AMA on equal treatment of parties and section 36 of\u00a0Nigeria\u2019s Constitution<\/a>. The Court agreed with Bayshore. Applying the threshold question of whether the Tribunal had treated the parties equally, the Court held that granting one party extensive document production while denying the other comparable access constituted a serious imbalance. The refusal was found to constitute a \u201cviolent breach\u201d of the parties\u2019 rights to equal treatment and a fair hearing. Accordingly, the Court set aside Procedural Order 8 and directed Green Fuels Ltd to produce the requested documents within seven days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision is significant for Nigerian arbitration practice in 2025. While concerns have been raised about excessive judicial interference, the case illustrates that Nigerian courts remain prepared to intervene at the procedural stage where a tribunal\u2019s decision threatens procedural fairness. Importantly, the Court recognised that the AMA permits challenges to tribunal decisions, distinct from final awards, reinforcing that procedural fairness is not deferred until the award stage. The decision is currently on appeal, and it remains to be seen how the appellate court will view this important issue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oil & Industries Services Ltd v. Hempel Paints (South Africa) Pty Ltd (CA\/PH\/1777\/2021, on 24 January 2025) & Champion Breweries Plc v. Brauerei Beck GMBH & Co (CA\/L\/1237\/2015, 20 June 2025)\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0OIS Ltd v. Hempel and Champion v. Beck<\/em>, the Court of Appeal in two separate cases held that Nigerian courts did not have jurisdiction to set aside a foreign-seated arbitral award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0OIS Ltd v. Hempel<\/em>, after the conclusion of an LCIA arbitration seated in London, England with an award in favour of Hempel, Hempel commenced enforcement proceedings. OIS Ltd contested these proceedings, but also filed set aside proceedings before the same court. Both proceedings were consolidated and heard by a single judge.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relying on\u00a0Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention<\/a>, which the court held to have been domesticated in Nigeria, the court held that the jurisdiction to set aside a foreign-seated award had been allocated to the court of the seat. Consequently, it dismissed the set aside proceedings for want of jurisdiction. OIS Ltd appealed this decision, but the Court of Appeal endorsed the decision of the first instance court without reservation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Champion v. Beck<\/em>, following an ICC arbitration seated in Geneva, Switzerland, with an award in favour of Beck, Beck commenced enforcement proceedings in Nigeria. Champion contested these proceedings. As the period to file set aside proceedings had lapsed, it also filed an application seeking an extension of time to set aside the Final Award and an order setting aside the award. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As in OIS Ltd v. Hempel<\/em>, <\/strong>the court of first instance held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (i.e., the erstwhile arbitration legislation) did not empower Nigerian courts to set aside awards made in respect of international commercial arbitrations held outside Nigeria, leading it to strike out Champion\u2019s application. The Court of Appeal dismissed Champion\u2019s appeal from this decision and affirmed the decision of the first instance court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both cases are significant given a prior decision by the same court in\u00a0Limak v. Sahelian<\/em>, in which the court held that Nigerian courts \u201care expressly conferred with jurisdiction to set aside an arbitral award made outside Nigeria irrespective of the Country in which it is made<\/em>\u201d, to wide criticism from the arbitration community within and outside of Nigeria.\u00a0\u00a0Neither case refers to or distinguishes its position from the decision in\u00a0Limak<\/em>\u00a0despite one of the judges that decided\u00a0Limak<\/em>being presiding over the appeal in\u00a0OIS Ltd v. Hempel.<\/em>\u00a0However, the inference to be drawn from the silence, as well as the rule of precedents, signals a clear intention to put an end to\u00a0Limak<\/em>\u00a0once and for all. All three decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court, Nigeria\u2019s apex court, and it remains to be seen whether\u00a0Limak\u00a0<\/em>is truly dead and gone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fougerolle v. Federal Republic of Nigeria<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0Fougerolle v. Federal Republic of Nigeria<\/em><\/a>\u00a0the arbitration arose from contracts relating to the\u00a0Ajaokuta Steel Plant project, under which\u00a0Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Fougerolle\u00a0(through its Nigerian and French entities) undertook construction works for the\u00a0Federal Republic of Nigeria. Alleging non-payment and contractual breaches, Fougerolle commenced arbitration in\u00a0December 2022\u00a0at the\u00a0ADR Centre of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, claiming approximately\u00a0\u20a64 billion and \u20ac185.7 million\u00a0in damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nigeria denied liability, contending that Fougerolle failed to perform its contractual obligations and that the claims were unsubstantiated, time-barred, or previously settled. It also challenged the evidentiary basis and quantum of the sums claimed. In its\u00a0Final Arbitral Award of 11 November 2025, the tribunal\u00a0dismissed all claims, holding that Fougerolle failed to establish Nigeria\u2019s liability or prove its alleged losses. The tribunal found the evidence insufficient to support both breach and damages. The award marked a\u00a0notable victory for Nigeria, reflecting stronger defence of high-value arbitral claims and reinforcing the centrality of proof and causation in infrastructure-related arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ifeoma Solanke\u00a0<\/strong>is a Nigerian-qualified lawyer with nearly a decade of experience in litigation and arbitration. She is a key member of the Disputes Resolution Practice Group at\u00a0Templars<\/strong><\/a>, a leading Commercial Law Firm in Nigeria and West Africa, where arbitration is her mainstay. She is a strong arbitration practitioner, acting as counsel and tribunal secretary in several high stakes and routine institutional, ad hoc, domestic and international arbitration disputes. She is an Associate at the\u00a0Chartered Institute of Arbitrators<\/a>\u00a0(Ciarb UK) and a member of the Lagos Court of Arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faith Oyewale\u00a0<\/strong>is a Nigerian-qualified lawyer with over six years of experience in dispute resolution, spanning both litigation and arbitration. He has experience working with the arbitration team at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP in Paris, France (\u201cQE<\/strong>\u201d). Before his time at QE, Faith practiced at a tier-one dispute resolution firm in Nigeria. He has appeared as counsel before various superior courts of record in Nigeria. Faith holds an LL.M. in International Dispute Settlement (\u201cMIDS\u201d<\/strong>) in Geneva, Switzerland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2025 Arbitration Year in Review: Nigeria examines court rulings, ADR policy, enforcement, procedural fairness, and high-value arbitration disputes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":290491,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"213","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review - Nigeria","fb_description":"2025 Arbitration Year in Review: Nigeria examines court rulings, ADR policy, enforcement, procedural fairness, and high-value arbitration disputes.","fb_image":"290240","twitter_title":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review - Nigeria","twitter_description":"2025 Arbitration Year in Review: Nigeria examines court rulings, ADR policy, enforcement, procedural fairness, and high-value arbitration disputes.","twitter_image":"290240"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[166,205,207,208,188,213,161],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-290228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-africa","category-arbitration","category-commercial-arbitration","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-nigeria","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=290228"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290228\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":290238,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290228\/revisions\/290238"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290491"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=290228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=290228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=290228"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=290228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}