THE AUTHOR:
Joseph Siyaidon, Founder of Joseph Siyaidon LP
In a significant victory for arbitration jurisprudence in Nigeria, the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division dismissed the suit instituted by FBNQuest Trustees Limited and others against the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, Lagos (“RCICAL”) and its Chief Legal Officer, holding that the action constituted a gross abuse of court process. The Court further affirmed the statutory and diplomatic immunity enjoyed by RCICAL as an arbitral institution and awarded adverse costs, including personal costs against the Plaintiffs’ counsel, Norrison I. Quakers, SAN.
The decision marks one of the first instances of Nigerian courts expressly affirming the immunity of arbitral institutions acting within their statutory mandate under the Nigerian Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (“AMA 2023”), a significant signal for the enforceability of institutional arbitration in the country.
Introduction
The suit arose from the appointment by RCICAL of Prof. Ike Ehiribe as sole arbitrator in a dispute between Bromley Technology Limited and FBNQuest Trustees Limited, following the failure of the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (“CIBN”), the designated appointing authority under the parties’ arbitration agreement, to appoint an arbitrator despite court orders directing it to do so.
Rather than challenge the appointment solely through the pending appellate process, the Plaintiffs commenced fresh proceedings before the Federal High Court seeking to invalidate the arbitral process and alleging that RCICAL had usurped the powers of the Court of Appeal. RCICAL, represented by Joseph Siyaidon LP, responded with a robust Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court and the competence of the suit.
In a comprehensive ruling delivered on 8 May 2026, the Court upheld the Preliminary Objection in its entirety and dismissed the action.
The underlying dispute originated from loan facility agreements dated 13 August 2020 and 11 November 2020 between Bromley Technology Limited and Wema Bank Plc, which contained arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be resolved by a sole arbitrator. Where parties failed to agree on the arbitrator, the agreement empowered the Registrar of the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria to appoint one.
Subsequently:
- In Suit No. FHC/AB/CS/69/2023, the Federal High Court ordered the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration.
- In Suit No. FHC/L/CS/579/2024, the Federal High Court further directed CIBN to appoint a sole arbitrator within 14 days.
When CIBN failed to act, Bromley Technology Limited invoked Article 6(4) of the Arbitration Rules 2023 and requested RCICAL to act as substitute appointing authority. Acting pursuant to its statutory mandate under the AMA 2023, RCICAL appointed Prof. Ike Ehiribe as sole arbitrator on 24 July 2024.
Dissatisfied with the appointment, FBNQuest Trustees Limited and others instituted the present suit against RCICAL and its Director, alleging that the constitution of the arbitral tribunal amounted to an unlawful usurpation of the powers of the Court of Appeal while appeals arising from the earlier decisions were pending.
Submissions of Counsel
Defence of Immunity
Counsel to the Defendants/Objectors, Joseph Siyaidon, Esq., argued that RCICAL and its officials enjoyed statutory and diplomatic immunity under:
- Section 13 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023; and
- Order 6(1)(b) of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges (Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration) Order 2001.
The Defendants submitted that RCICAL merely acted in discharge of its official functions as a substitute appointing authority under Article 6(4) of the Arbitration Rules 2023 after the designated appointing authority failed to act.
Counsel further argued that there was no evidence whatsoever of bad faith capable of displacing the immunity expressly conferred by law.
In response, the Plaintiffs contended that the immunity provisions were not absolute and did not extend to acts allegedly done in bad faith. They also argued that RCICAL, being a corporate body capable of suing and being sued, could not claim immunity.
Abuse of Court Process
On abuse of process, Joseph Siyaidon LP argued that the Plaintiffs’ suit was a calculated attempt to frustrate ongoing arbitral proceedings and undermine subsisting court decisions compelling arbitration. Counsel submitted that:
- the Plaintiffs had already filed appeals against the earlier Federal High Court decisions;
- motions for stay of execution were already pending before the Court of Appeal; and
- the fresh suit sought substantially the same reliefs and pursued the same objective as the pending appellate proceedings.
Relying on a long line of authorities, including Saraki v. Kotoye, GTB v. Innoson, Edem v. Ishie, and Cowrie Business Solutions Ltd v. NDIC, counsel argued that instituting a fresh suit while appeals and applications touching the same subject matter remained pending constituted a classic case of abuse of court process.
The Defendants also emphasized that Section 5(1) and (2) of the AMA 2023 expressly permits arbitral proceedings to continue notwithstanding pending court proceedings.
Claim for Adverse Costs
Joseph Siyaidon LP further sought substantial costs against both the Plaintiffs and their counsel personally, arguing that:
- the suit was frivolous and vexatious;
- RCICAL had incurred significant legal expenses defending the action;
- the proceedings unfairly brought the reputation of the Centre into disrepute; and
- the Plaintiffs’ counsel knowingly pursued abusive litigation.
The Defendants produced documentary evidence of legal fees paid to counsel and relied on recent appellate authorities recognizing the recoverability of solicitor’s fees where properly pleaded and proved.
Decision of the Court
The Court Upheld RCICAL’s Immunity
The Court held unequivocally that RCICAL and its officials were protected by statutory and diplomatic immunity in respect of acts done in the discharge of their official functions.
Justice Aluko found that:
- RCICAL acted pursuant to Section 7(3)(b) of the AMA 2023 and Article 6(4) of the Arbitration Rules 2023;
- the appointment of the arbitrator was made in compliance with subsisting court decisions; and
- there was no credible evidence of bad faith capable of stripping the Centre of its immunity.
The Court specifically held:
“There is demonstrable and credible evidence before the court establishing that the centre and its officials are merely discharging their duty in line with the law and are entitled to protection and immunity…”
The Court therefore resolved the immunity issue in favour of RCICAL.
The Court Found the Suit to be a Gross Abuse of Court Process
On abuse of process, the Court delivered particularly strong findings against the Plaintiffs.
Justice Aluko held that the Plaintiffs’ suit sought to indirectly review decisions already on appeal and to frustrate compliance with subsisting orders directing the parties to arbitrate.
The Court found that:
- the issues raised in the suit were already pending before the Court of Appeal;
- the Plaintiffs had already filed motions for stay of execution before the appellate court; and
- the fresh suit pursued the same objective under a different guise.
In one of the most notable pronouncements in the judgment, the Court held:
“Filing this suit while two separate appeals… are pending on the issue and matter relating to reference to arbitration and appointment of arbitral panel render this suit a gross abuse of court process.”
The Court further characterized the claims as:
“vexatious, frivolous and amount to gross abuse of court process.”
The Court Awarded Adverse Costs — Including Personal Costs Against Counsel
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the judgment was the Court’s award of costs. Having characterized the Plaintiff’s claims as: “vexatious, frivolous and amount to gross abuse of court process.”
The Court ordered:
- ₦15 Million against the Plaintiffs as legal costs incurred by RCICAL in defending the suit;
- ₦15 Million against the 1st Plaintiff as adverse costs; and
- ₦2 Million personally against the Plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Norrison I. Quakers, SAN, for pursuing the frivolous action and for the effect of the proceedings on the reputation of the Centre.
The Court thereby reaffirmed the principle that counsel may personally bear consequences for instituting abusive or vexatious proceedings.
Commentary
This judgment is a watershed moment for arbitration law and institutional arbitration practice in Nigeria.
First, the decision provides one of the clearest judicial affirmations of the immunity enjoyed by arbitral institutions under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 and the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Order 2001. The Court’s reasoning reinforces the independence and operational protection necessary for arbitral institutions to perform their statutory functions without intimidation through collateral litigation.
Second, the judgment strongly condemns the increasing trend of using court processes to frustrate arbitration proceedings. By characterizing the suit as a “gross abuse of court process,” the Court sent a clear message that parties cannot weaponize parallel litigation to undermine arbitration agreements and valid arbitral appointments.
Third, the personal costs awarded against counsel are especially significant. Nigerian courts have traditionally exercised restraint in imposing personal liability on legal practitioners. The Court’s decision signals a growing judicial willingness to sanction abusive litigation tactics where counsel actively facilitate frivolous proceedings that undermine the administration of justice.
The ruling stands as a powerful judicial endorsement of arbitration, institutional independence, and procedural discipline in Nigerian dispute resolution practice.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joseph Siyaidon is a seasoned legal practitioner with deep expertise in arbitration and commercial litigation. He is known for delivering innovative and strategic solutions to complex disputes across a range of sectors, including maritime, oil and gas, commercial contracts, construction, corporate law, finance, debt/asset recovery, real estate, insolvency, and civil fraud/white-collar crime. He has served as arbitrator, counsel and Nigerian law expert in numerous international arbitrations and arbitral award enforcement proceedings, with a strong focus on the maritime, energy, and oil and gas and financial services industries. Notably, Joseph recently secured Nigeria’s first-ever third-party funded arbitration award under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, in favour of a German construction company. Beyond dispute resolution, Joseph advises clients on concession agreements, joint venture structures, maritime asset acquisitions, due diligence, and transactions involving distressed assets. He also brings substantial in-house experience, having led the legal and compliance function at Promax and Complant Holdings Limited, a multinational investment consortium registered in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”). Joseph currently services as an International Chamber of Commerce Young Arbitrators and ADR Forum (“ICCYAAF”) Representative for Africa and is based in Lagos, Nigeria.
*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.
