Abstract
AbstractParties find it difficult to determine which Nigerian High Court should intervene in the appointment of arbitrators due to conflicting judicial precedents. This perennial challenge has defied any legal solution. Considering relevant case law, this article examines the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) vis-à-vis the Nigerian Constitution. The main argument is that the Nigerian Constitution read alongside the ACA confers the Federal High Court with additional jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators regardless of which court has jurisdiction concerning the underlying dispute. There are also uncertainties regarding the intervention jurisdiction of Nigeria's National Industrial Court to appoint arbitrators. Currently, no other court can exercise intervention jurisdiction in employment disputes. This article analyses recent decisions of the National Industrial Court and argues that this Court can only intervene to appoint arbitrators where both parties request the appointment in a pending action before the Court. It is also argued that decisions concerning the appointment of arbitrators through judicial intervention can be appealed.
Highlights
Many parties involved in commercial dealings have demonstrated a clear preference for arbitration as a means of resolving disputes that arise during commercial transactions.[1]
The overarching argument is that section 251(1) of the Constitution read alongside section 57 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (the ACA) provides additional jurisdiction for the Federal High Court to intervene in arbitration notwithstanding the subject matter of the underlying dispute.[18]
Considering section 241(1) of the Constitution which provides a right to appeal, the correct position of the law was stated in Nigerian Agip Oil v Kemmer,[99] and that there is a right to appeal the decision of the High Court in appointing an arbitrator
Summary
Many parties involved in commercial dealings have demonstrated a clear preference for arbitration as a means of resolving disputes that arise during commercial transactions.[1]. The impasse that arises from the jurisdictional tussle between the Federal and the State High Courts can be resolved to facilitate court intervention in arbitration by interpreting section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the Constitution) alongside section 57 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (the ACA) In this context, the Nigerian legislature has conferred additional jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to intervene in arbitration irrespective of the subject matter of the underlying dispute. The overarching argument is that section 251(1) of the Constitution read alongside section 57 of the ACA provides additional jurisdiction for the Federal High Court to intervene in arbitration notwithstanding the subject matter of the underlying dispute.[18] If the courts accept this argument, it would mean that the confusion as to which of the High Courts would have jurisdiction can be eliminated by approaching the Federal High Court This approach will facilitate access to justice when parties find themselves in the remit of litigation. The jurisdiction conferred by the National Assembly with respect to certain disputes under sec 251 of the Constitution
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
