The principal methods for resolving commercial disputes in Nigeria are litigation, arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanisms, particularly mediation.

Commercial disputes typically arise between business stakeholders or partners regarding the interpretation, performance or enforcement of contractual obligations. Traditionally, litigation remains the predominant mechanism for resolving such disputes. Litigation entails the submission of a dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction, which adjudicates upon the rights and obligations of the parties and delivers a binding and enforceable judgment.

Notwithstanding the continued prominence of litigation, arbitration has gained significant traction as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism in commercial transactions. Arbitration is a private, consensual process whereby parties agree to submit their dispute to one or more neutral third parties (arbitrators), whose decision, embodied in an arbitral award, is final and binding on the parties. The increasing preference for arbitration is attributable to its relative efficiency, confidentiality and the ease of enforcement of arbitral awards.

In addition, mediation and other ADR mechanisms are increasingly utilised in the resolution of commercial disputes. Mediation involves the engagement of a neutral third party who facilitates negotiations between disputing parties with a view to achieving an amicable settlement. The process is non-adjudicatory and party-driven. In Nigeria, mediation is now expressly recognised and regulated under the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023.

In practice, while litigation remains prevalent, there is a discernible shift towards arbitration and mediation, reflecting a broader acceptance of ADR mechanisms in the Nigerian commercial dispute-resolution landscape.

The principal dispute resolution mechanisms available in Nigeria include litigation, arbitration, mediation, conciliation and negotiation. The relative popularity and suitability of each mechanism are largely determined by the nature, complexity and contractual context of the dispute.

Litigation remains the most widely utilised mechanism, particularly for general commercial disputes. It is commonly employed in matters such as debt recovery, breach of contract, land and property disputes and issues relating to company management and administration. Its continued prevalence is attributable to its formal structure, coercive powers and the authority of court judgments. However, the attendant delays, costs and procedural rigidity have encouraged a gradual shift towards alternative mechanisms.

Arbitration has gained considerable prominence, especially in complex, technical commercial disputes. It is frequently adopted in sectors such as construction, energy, maritime, international trade, intellectual property and technology-related disputes. Its use is typically predicated on an arbitration clause in the underlying contract, which delineates the categories of disputes to be referred to arbitration. Arbitration is particularly favoured where parties require technical expertise, confidentiality and finality in the resolution process.

Mediation is increasingly utilised as a flexible and party-driven mechanism, particularly where the preservation of commercial relationships is desirable. It involves the intervention of a neutral third party who facilitates discussions between the disputing parties without imposing a binding decision. Mediation is now formally recognised and governed by the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023 and is often encouraged by courts as a preliminary step in dispute resolution.

Conciliation, though less frequently distinguished in practice from mediation, similarly involves the assistance of a neutral third party in facilitating settlement, sometimes with a more evaluative role. It is recognised under the same statutory framework and is utilised in appropriate circumstances where a guided settlement process is preferred.

Negotiation remains the most informal and foundational dispute resolution mechanism. It involves direct engagement between the parties, without a third party, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable resolution. It is often the first step in resolving disputes and may either culminate in settlement or precede recourse to more formal mechanisms.

In practice, while litigation continues to dominate, there is a clear and increasing preference for arbitration and mediation in commercial disputes, particularly those of a complex, technical or relationship-sensitive nature.

Nigeria, as a common law jurisdiction, has witnessed significant and progressive developments in its dispute resolution landscape in recent years. Several key trends are noteworthy.

First, there has been a marked shift towards arbitration as a preferred mechanism for resolving commercial disputes, particularly following the enactment of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023. The Act represents a modern, forward-looking legislative framework that aligns Nigeria with international best practices. Notably, it introduces provisions recognising third-party funding in arbitration, enhances the enforceability of arbitration agreements and awards and accommodates the use of technology in arbitral proceedings. In parallel, institutional arbitration has continued to develop, with bodies such as the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Lagos, incorporating provisions for virtual hearings and other procedural innovations within their rules.

Secondly, there has been an increasing adoption of technology across both litigation and ADR processes. Nigerian courts now routinely deploy virtual hearing platforms, including Zoom and Microsoft Teams, particularly following the adaptations necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This has improved efficiency, reduced logistical constraints and enhanced access to justice, especially in complex and multi-jurisdictional disputes.

A further emerging trend is the growing integration of artificial intelligence and digital tools in dispute resolution practice. While still evolving, legal practitioners are increasingly utilising AI-assisted platforms for legal research, document review and drafting, thereby improving efficiency and reducing turnaround times in dispute management.

In addition, there has been a sustained institutional emphasis on the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly mediation. Many jurisdictions in Nigeria have implemented mandatory pre-action protocols requiring parties to demonstrate that they have explored amicable settlement options before commencing litigation. This requirement, which originated in jurisdictions such as Lagos and the Federal Capital Territory, has now been adopted, in varying forms, across several states. The effect has been to encourage early resolution of disputes and to reduce the burden on the courts.

Taken together, these developments reflect a clear trajectory towards a more modern, efficient and arbitration-friendly dispute resolution framework, positioning Nigeria as an increasingly competitive forum for resolving complex commercial disputes.

Limitation periods applicable to the commencement of claims in Nigeria are governed by the various Limitation Laws of the constituent States and accordingly may differ depending on the jurisdiction in which the cause of action arises. By way of illustration, under the Limitation Law of Lagos State, being the most commercially significant jurisdiction, the following limitation periods apply:

• contract and tort – actions founded on simple contract or tort must be commenced within six years from the date the cause of action accrued;
• recovery of land – actions for the recovery of land are subject to a limitation period of 12 years;
• negligence involving personal injury – actions for negligence where the claim includes damages for personal injury must be brought within three years.
• defamation (slander) – actions for slander must be commenced within two years;
• penalties and forfeiture – actions to recover a statutory penalty or forfeiture are also subject to a two-year limitation period;
• speciality claims (instruments under seal) – actions founded on instruments under seal (including claims to recover sums secured by a mortgage or charge, arrears of interest or to enforce an arbitral award where the arbitration agreement is under seal) are subject to a 12-year limitation period; and
• enforcement of judgments – an action to enforce a judgment of a Nigerian court must be commenced within 12 years from the date the judgment became enforceable. In contrast, actions to enforce foreign judgments are generally subject to a six-year limitation period.

It is also pertinent to note that in cases of continuing damage or injury, the law recognises the accrual of a fresh cause of action from time to time for as long as the wrongful act persists. In such circumstances, the limitation period does not run conclusively until the wrongful conduct ceases, thereby effectively extending the timeframe within which proceedings may be instituted.

In practice, careful consideration must be given to the applicable limitation regime, as failure to commence proceedings within the prescribed period is fatal to the claim, however meritorious.

The Nigerian court system is constitutionally structured into courts of first instance (trial courts) and appellate courts, with a further distinction between inferior and superior courts of record.

At the apex of the hierarchy is the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which is the final court of appeal. Beneath it is the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, which hears appeals from the trial courts and certain statutory tribunals such as the Investments and Securities Tribunal and certain election tribunals. These appellate courts are followed by the superior trial courts, which include the Federal High Court, the various State High Courts, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, as well as the Sharia Courts of Appeal and Customary Courts of Appeal. These courts are established under Section 6(5)(a)–(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and are collectively recognised as superior courts of record, with extensive jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters.

Inferior courts of record, on the other hand, are established by statutes other than the Constitution and include:

• Magistrate Courts;
• District Courts;
• Area Courts; and
• Customary Courts.

These courts typically exercise limited jurisdiction, often defined by subject matter and monetary thresholds.

In addition, the Nigerian legal system recognises certain specialist courts and quasi-judicial bodies with defined subject-matter jurisdiction. Notable among these are the National Industrial Court (with exclusive jurisdiction over labour and employment matters), courts-martial, coroners’ courts and juvenile courts.

Finally, certain disputes are determined in the first instance by administrative and regulatory bodies, including tribunals and commissions, established under various statutes. Decisions of such bodies are generally subject to judicial review or appeal before the regular courts.

Overall, the Nigerian court structure reflects a multi-tiered system designed to accommodate general, specialised and appellate adjudication within a constitutionally defined framework.

Certain Nigerian courts impose pre-action conduct requirements, typically contained in their Rules of Court and applicable Practice Directions. These requirements often mandate the issuance of pre-action correspondence and, in appropriate cases, the exploration of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms prior to the commencement of litigation.

In addition, a number of statutes prescribe mandatory pre-action notice requirements as a condition precedent to instituting proceedings against specified government agencies and public authorities. Such provisions are intended to afford the prospective defendant advance notice of the intended action and an opportunity to consider settlement or otherwise prepare an adequate defence before litigation is commenced.

The underlying rationale for pre-action notice requirements is therefore twofold: first, to encourage the amicable resolution of disputes without recourse to litigation; and secondly, to ensure procedural fairness by enabling the defendant to be properly apprised of the potential claim.

It is well settled that where a statute expressly requires the service of a pre-action notice, compliance is mandatory, unless validly waived by the party entitled to rely on it. Failure to comply with such a requirement renders the action incompetent and liable to be struck out. In effect, the court’s jurisdiction is held in abeyance pending compliance with the statutory condition precedent.

Accordingly, non-compliance with mandatory pre-action requirements is typically fatal to proceedings, as it deprives the court of the jurisdiction to entertain the matter until the defect is cured.

Court proceedings in Nigeria are broadly divided into civil and criminal processes, each following a structured sequence of procedural stages designed to ensure fair hearing and orderly adjudication.

Civil Proceedings

Civil actions are typically commenced by the filing of an originating process, which may take the form of a writ of summons originating summons originating motion or petition, depending on the nature of the claim. Upon filing, the originating process is served on the defendant, who is required to enter an appearance and file a statement of defence within the prescribed time. Failure to do so may entitle the claimant to seek judgment in default of pleadings.

Following the exchange of pleadings and the joinder of issues, the matter proceeds to case management. In jurisdictions such as Lagos State, this takes the form of a Case Management Conference (CMC) under the High Court Rules, during which the court considers interlocutory applications, defines issues for trial and actively explores settlement, including referral to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Where settlement is not achieved, the matter proceeds to trial. At this stage, parties present evidence through witnesses, who take their written depositions on oath and are cross-examined. Upon the close of evidence, counsel files and adopts written final addresses.

Judgment is thereafter delivered in writing. Pursuant to Section 294(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), judgment must be delivered within 90 days of the conclusion of final addresses.

Criminal Proceedings

Criminal proceedings generally comprise four principal stages:

• pre-trial stage – involving investigation and, in some cases, administrative or prosecutorial review;
• arraignment – where the charge is read to the defendant and a plea is taken;
• trial – involving the presentation of evidence by the prosecution and defence; and
• judgment and post-trial stage – culminating in conviction or acquittal and, where applicable, sentencing.

Duration of Proceedings

The duration of court proceedings in Nigeria varies considerably depending on factors such as the complexity of the dispute, the nature of the claims, interlocutory applications and the court’s docket.

Notwithstanding this, the Rules of Court increasingly include timelines to expedite proceedings. For example:

• pre-trial or case management conferences are typically expected to be concluded within a defined period (often within a few months of commencement); and
• judgment must, as noted, be delivered within 90 days of final addresses.

In Lagos State, the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules provide for a Fast Track procedure applicable to specified categories of claims, including high-value liquidated monetary claims and certain commercial transactions. Under this regime, proceedings are intended to be concluded within approximately nine (9) months from commencement to final judgment.

In practice, however, while straightforward matters-particularly those commenced by originating summons or originating motions-may be concluded within 6 to 18 months, more complex or contested cases may extend over several years, particularly where there are interlocutory disputes or appeals.

Overall, while the procedural framework in Nigeria is designed to facilitate the timely resolution of disputes, the actual duration of proceedings is influenced by a combination of procedural, institutional and case-specific factors and ongoing reforms aim to improve efficiency and reduce delays.

Court proceedings in Nigeria are, as a general rule, public. This reflects the constitutional principle of open justice, which requires that judicial proceedings, including the delivery of rulings and judgments, be conducted in open court. This principle is enshrined in Section 36(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and promotes transparency, accountability and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Notwithstanding this general rule, the Constitution recognises limited exceptions. Under Section 36(4), a court or tribunal may exclude the public from proceedings in specific circumstances where such exclusion is justified in the interest of:

• national defence;
• public safety or public order;
• public morality;
• the welfare of minors; or
• the protection of the private lives of the parties.
• In such cases, proceedings may be conducted in camera.

In addition, certain proceedings may be heard in chambers, such as ex parte proceedings for urgent interim relief. However, where a matter becomes contentious and involves the determination of substantive rights, the constitutional requirement of a public hearing ordinarily necessitates that such proceedings be conducted in open court.

Interim reliefs are temporary measures granted by the court to preserve the subject matter of a dispute or maintain the status quo pending the final determination of the suit. Such reliefs are a critical feature of civil litigation in Nigeria and are frequently sought, particularly in commercial disputes where there is a risk of asset dissipation or irreparable harm.

The most commonly utilised forms of interim relief are interim and interlocutory injunctions:

Interim injunctions are typically granted ex parte to preserve the status quo for a short period pending the hearing of a motion on notice. They are usually time-bound and granted in circumstances of urgency.

Interlocutory injunctions are granted upon notice to the opposing party and are intended to subsist pending the determination of the substantive suit. In considering such applications, the court does not delve into the merits of the case but is guided by established principles, including whether there is a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable damage.

In addition to these general forms, Nigerian courts recognise a number of specialised interim remedies, including:

• Mareva injunctions (freezing orders) – these restrain a defendant from dissipating or removing assets within the jurisdiction in a manner that would frustrate the enforcement of any eventual judgment;
• Anton Piller orders (search and preservation orders) – these permit the applicant, under court supervision, to enter the respondent’s premises to search for, seize and preserve relevant documents or property, typically in cases involving intellectual property or fraud;
• mandatory injunctions – these compel a party to take a positive step, often to restore the status quo ante; and
• Quia timet injunctions – these are granted to prevent a threatened or anticipated wrong where there is a real risk of imminent harm.

Interim reliefs are commonly sought in both litigation and arbitration-related proceedings, particularly in commercial matters involving urgent risk. Courts have shown a willingness to grant such reliefs where the applicant satisfies the requisite legal thresholds, recognising their importance in ensuring that the eventual judgment or award is not rendered nugatory.

In commercial litigation in Nigeria, the principal forms of final relief available to a successful litigant are those designed to conclusively determine the parties’ rights and obligations and to provide appropriate remedies for any established breach or wrong.

The key categories of final relief have been outlined below.

• Monetary damages: This is the most common form of relief in commercial disputes. Damages may be compensatory (to place the claimant in the position it would have been in but for the breach) or, in appropriate cases, general or special damages. In limited circumstances, courts may also award exemplary or punitive damages.
• Declaratory relief: The court may issue binding declarations regarding the rights, obligations or legal status of the parties under a contract or in relation to a transaction. Declaratory judgments are particularly useful where clarification of legal rights is required without necessarily seeking coercive relief.
• Injunctive reliefs: Final or perpetual injunctions may be granted to permanently restrain a party from engaging in certain acts (prohibitory injunctions) or to compel the performance of specific acts (mandatory injunctions), depending on the circumstances of the case.
• Specific performance: In appropriate cases, particularly involving unique subject matter such as land or shares, the court may order a party to perform its contractual obligations, rather than merely awarding damages.
• Restitutionary remedies: These include orders for account of profits, rescission or restitution, aimed at preventing unjust enrichment and restoring the parties to their pre-transaction position.
• Orders for possession or delivery up: In cases involving property or goods, the court may order the delivery up of assets or grant possession to the successful party.
• Interest and costs: Courts routinely award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as costs of the action, in favour of the successful party.

In practice, the nature of the final relief granted will depend on the specific claims advanced and the evidence adduced. Nigerian courts exercise equitable and statutory jurisdiction to ensure that the reliefs awarded are both just and effective in resolving the dispute.

Damages in Nigerian law are broadly classified into general damages and special damages and the principles governing their assessment are well settled.

General damages are those which the law presumes to flow naturally from the wrongful act complained of. They are not capable of precise quantification and, accordingly, need not be specifically pleaded. Typical heads of general damages include pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life and, in appropriate cases, future losses.

In assessing general damages, the court exercises its discretion to make a global award, taking into account the totality of the harm suffered. The court is not obliged to itemise the award under specific heads. The guiding principle is that the award should represent a fair and reasonable compensation for the injury, which is the natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Special damages, on the other hand, represent specific and quantifiable losses actually incurred by the claimant. These must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by credible evidence. The court’s role in this regard is circumscribed: it may only award such sums as have been clearly particularised and established by the evidence. It is not open to the court to speculate or make its own assessment in respect of special damages.

In summary, while general damages are assessed broadly and at the discretion of the court based on the circumstances of the case, special damages are awarded strictly in accordance with what has been specifically pleaded and proved.

Arbitration has become an increasingly prominent and widely utilised mechanism for the resolution of commercial disputes in Nigeria. In recent years, there has been a clear and sustained shift towards arbitration, driven by its perceived advantages, including confidentiality, procedural flexibility, neutrality and the relative ease of enforcement of arbitral awards.

Arbitration is particularly prevalent in commercial and technical sectors, where parties often require specialist expertise and a neutral forum for dispute resolution. It is commonly adopted in industries such as:

• oil and gas;
• telecommunications;
• banking and finance;
• construction and infrastructure;
• real estate; and
• consumer goods and general commercial transactions.

In practice, most disputes arising from commercial contracts, especially those with cross-border elements or significant financial value, are routinely referred to arbitration where the underlying agreement contains an arbitration clause.

Arbitration is widely recognised and utilised in Nigeria; however, its application is subject to certain limitations grounded in the doctrine of arbitrability. As a general rule, arbitration is best suited to disputes arising from commercial and contractual relationships and its scope does not extend to all categories of disputes.

Certain matters are regarded as non-arbitrable because they implicate public rights, statutory obligations or issues reserved exclusively for judicial determination. These include:

• criminal matters, which by their nature involve the enforcement of public law and cannot be resolved privately;
• matrimonial causes, including the dissolution of marriage and related reliefs;
• Election petitions and constitutional matters, which are governed by specialised statutory and constitutional regimes;
• questions relating to the title to land, particularly where they involve determinations in rem affecting third-party rights; and
• tax disputes, which Nigerian courts have consistently held to be statutory in nature and therefore not amenable to arbitration.

In addition, while commercial disputes are generally arbitrable, allegations of fraud may, in certain circumstances, render a dispute non-arbitrable if they raise issues of public policy requiring judicial intervention.

The underlying principle is that only disputes which are capable of settlement by private agreement may be referred to arbitration. Accordingly, although arbitration is firmly established as a preferred mechanism for resolving commercial disputes in Nigeria, its use remains subject to the overriding requirement that the subject matter of the dispute is legally arbitrable.

Arbitration is widely regarded as an attractive dispute resolution mechanism in Nigeria, particularly in commercial contexts, owing to a number of perceived advantages.

Foremost is the principle of party autonomy, which affords parties considerable flexibility in structuring the dispute resolution process. Parties are at liberty to determine key aspects of the arbitration, including the choice of arbitrator(s), the applicable procedural rules, the seat of arbitration and, in many cases, the governing law. This flexibility enables the process to be tailored to the specific needs and commercial realities of the dispute.

Arbitration also offers a high degree of confidentiality, as proceedings are conducted privately and are not subject to the public scrutiny typically associated with court litigation. This is particularly advantageous in disputes involving sensitive commercial information or reputational considerations.

In addition, arbitration is often perceived as more efficient and expeditious than litigation. The procedural flexibility available to parties and tribunals can reduce delays and the absence of congested court dockets may facilitate a more streamlined resolution process.

Another key advantage is the ability to appoint arbitrators with relevant technical or industry expertise, which is particularly valuable in complex commercial disputes involving specialised subject matter.

Finally, arbitral awards are final and binding, with only limited grounds for challenge. This promotes certainty and finality in dispute resolution. Awards are also generally enforceable under international frameworks, enhancing their utility in cross-border transactions.

Taken together, these features make arbitration an increasingly preferred mechanism for resolving commercial disputes in Nigeria.

Arbitration is widely utilised in Nigeria, albeit not without its perceived limitations.

A primary concern is cost. Contrary to the perception that arbitration is invariably cheaper than litigation, in practice it can be significantly more expensive. Parties are required to bear not only their legal costs but also the arbitral tribunal’s fees, the administrative costs of arbitral institutions and venue-related expenses. In complex or multi-member tribunal proceedings, these costs can be substantial and, in some cases, exceed litigation costs.

Another limitation is the potential for post-award challenges. Although arbitral awards are intended to be final and binding, Nigerian law permits limited judicial intervention, including applications to set aside or resist the enforcement of an award. In practice, unsuccessful parties may seek to challenge awards on jurisdictional or procedural grounds, which can result in delays and, to some extent, undermine the finality and efficiency associated with arbitration.

Additionally, arbitration lacks the coercive powers of the court, particularly in relation to third parties. For example, the ability to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents may, in certain circumstances, require recourse to the courts.

There is also the issue of limited appeal rights. While finality is often cited as an advantage, it can equally be a disadvantage where an arbitral tribunal errs in law or fact, as there is generally no right of appeal on the merits.

Finally, arbitration may not always deliver the anticipated speed advantages, particularly in complex disputes where procedural disputes, jurisdictional challenges or scheduling difficulties arise.

Accordingly, while arbitration offers significant benefits, parties must carefully weigh these considerations when selecting it as their preferred dispute resolution mechanism.

The use of institutional arbitration in Nigeria has grown steadily, with a number of local and international arbitral institutions playing prominent roles in the administration of disputes.

At the domestic level, a widely recognised institution is the Lagos Court of Arbitration (LCA), which provides modern arbitration and mediation services and has established itself as a leading centre for resolving commercial disputes in Nigeria. Similarly, the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Lagos remains a significant institution, particularly for international commercial arbitration, with established procedural rules and increasing adoption of technology-enabled proceedings.

Another notable body is the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK), Nigeria Branch, which, while primarily a professional body, frequently plays a role in the appointment of arbitrators and supports the development of arbitration practice in Nigeria.

In addition, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is widely used for high-value and cross-border disputes involving Nigerian parties, given its global reputation, robust procedural framework and enforceability advantages. Other international institutions, such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), are also occasionally utilised, particularly where parties have agreed to a foreign seat or international rules.

Overall, while domestic institutions such as the Lagos Court of Arbitration and RCICAL are increasingly prominent, international institutions, particularly the ICC, continue to play a significant role in complex, high-value and cross-border disputes involving Nigerian parties.

There is no statutorily prescribed timeframe for the conclusion of arbitral proceedings in Nigeria. The duration of an arbitration is largely dependent on factors such as:

• the complexity of the dispute;
• the parties’ conduct and cooperation;
• the efficiency of the arbitral tribunal; and
• the procedural framework adopted.

The legal framework governing arbitration in Nigeria is principally anchored on statute, supplemented by institutional rules and, where applicable, state-specific legislation.

The primary legislation is the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (“AMA”), which represents a modern and comprehensive framework for both domestic and international arbitration. The AMA applies to arbitrations where the seat is in Nigeria and incorporates contemporary features aligned with international best practice, including provisions on third-party funding, interim measures and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

In addition to the federal framework, certain states (most notably Lagos State) have enacted their own arbitration legislation. The Lagos State Arbitration Law 2009 may apply where Lagos is designated as the seat of arbitration and the parties have not expressly agreed otherwise. In practice, however, the AMA now serves as the principal reference point for arbitration proceedings across Nigeria.

Arbitral proceedings are also frequently conducted under the rules of recognised arbitral institutions. Prominent among these are the rules of the Lagos Court of Arbitration (LCA) and the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Lagos. These institutional rules provide detailed procedural guidance on the conduct of arbitration, including appointment of arbitrators, timelines, hearings and award issuance.

Accordingly, arbitration in Nigeria is governed by a combination of statutory provisions, institutional rules and party agreements, with the AMA serving as the central legislative foundation.

Nigerian courts play a supportive, though carefully circumscribed, role in the arbitral process, consistent with the principle of minimal judicial intervention.

One of the primary ways courts support arbitration is by enforcing arbitration agreements. Where a dispute is subject to a valid arbitration clause, the court will, upon application, stay proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration, thereby preventing a party from circumventing its contractual obligation to arbitrate.

Courts also play a central role in the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Arbitral awards, whether domestic or international, may be enforced through the courts as judgments. Conversely, the courts have jurisdiction to set aside arbitral awards on limited statutory grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity or breach of fair hearing.

In addition, courts may provide procedural assistance to arbitral proceedings. For example, upon application, a court may issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents, including in circumstances involving third parties over whom the arbitral tribunal has no coercive authority.

Another important area of support is the grant of interim protection measures. Courts are empowered to grant injunctive or preservative relief in aid of arbitration, particularly where urgency or the involvement of third parties necessitates judicial intervention. Such measures may be granted before or after the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and are intended to preserve assets or the subject matter of the dispute pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Overall, the role of Nigerian courts is to facilitate and uphold the arbitral process, intervening only where necessary to ensure its effectiveness and integrity.

As a general principle, Nigerian courts adopt a policy of non-intervention in arbitral proceedings, consistent with international best practice. This position is codified in the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (“AMA”), which provides that a court shall not intervene in matters governed by the Act except where expressly authorised to do so.

Notwithstanding this principle, the courts retain limited and clearly defined powers to intervene in support of or in relation to, arbitration. Such intervention typically arises in the circumstances outlined below.

• Grant of interim measures: Courts may grant interim or preservative relief in aid of arbitration, particularly where urgent action is required or where the subject matter of the dispute is in the custody or control of a third party beyond the reach of the arbitral tribunal. Such measures may be granted before or after the constitution of the tribunal and remain binding notwithstanding the tribunal’s subsequent constitution.
• Stay of proceedings and enforcement of arbitration agreements: Where proceedings are commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement, the court may intervene to stay the proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration.
• Appointment and support functions: In certain circumstances, courts may intervene in the appointment of arbitrators or in resolving procedural impasses, where the agreed mechanism fails.
• Recognition, enforcement and setting aside of awards: Courts play a supervisory role in the post-award stage, including the enforcement of arbitral awards and the setting aside of awards on limited statutory grounds.

Accordingly, while the courts generally refrain from interfering in the arbitral process, they retain targeted supervisory and supportive jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness, integrity and enforceability of arbitration proceedings.

Under Nigerian law, arbitral tribunals are empowered to grant a wide range of reliefs, broadly comparable to those available in litigation, subject to the parties’ agreement and the limits imposed by law.

Arbitral tribunals may grant:

• monetary reliefs, including damages (general and special), interest and costs;
• declaratory reliefs, determining the rights and obligations of the parties;
• specific performance and other equitable remedies, where appropriate; and
• injunctive reliefs, including both interim and final orders.

In addition, tribunals may grant interim protection measures, as expressly recognised under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (“AMA”).

The tribunal’s power to grant interim relief is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations:

• party autonomy – the parties may, by agreement, limit or exclude the tribunal’s power to grant interim measures;
• lack of coercive powers over third parties – tribunals generally cannot enforce orders against non-parties, which may necessitate recourse to the courts; and
• enforcement considerations – although interim measures are binding, their effectiveness may depend on court assistance for enforcement.

In addition to litigation and arbitration, a range of formal alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanisms are available in Nigeria for resolving commercial disputes. These mechanisms are increasingly recognised and, in some cases, institutionally supported.

The principal ADR procedures are as follows.

• Mediation: This is the most widely utilised ADR mechanism in Nigeria. It involves a neutral third party facilitating negotiations between disputing parties with a view to achieving a mutually acceptable settlement. Mediation is relatively cost-effective, flexible and less formal than litigation or arbitration. It is supported by institutional frameworks such as the Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse and the Lagos Court of Arbitration, both of which provide structured mediation services.
• Conciliation: Although recognised under Nigerian law, particularly the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, conciliation is less frequently utilised in practice. It is similar to mediation but may involve a more active role for the neutral in proposing settlement terms.
• Negotiation: This is the most informal ADR mechanism, involving direct discussions between the parties without a third party. It is often the first step in dispute resolution and may precede recourse to more structured processes.
• Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE): This involves engaging an independent expert who provides a non-binding assessment of the dispute’s merits at an early stage, thereby assisting parties in evaluating their positions and facilitating settlement.
• Med-Arb: This is a hybrid process in which mediation is attempted first and if unsuccessful, the matter proceeds to arbitration, sometimes before the same neutral.
• Expert Determination: This mechanism is commonly used in technically complex disputes, particularly in sectors such as construction and infrastructure. An independent expert is appointed to determine specific issues and the decision may be binding or advisory depending on the parties’ agreement.
• Ombudsman (Public Complaints Commission): The Public Complaints Commission (PCC) of Nigeria is empowered to investigate complaints relating to maladministration by public authorities and certain corporate bodies. While it provides a form of administrative dispute resolution, it is less commonly utilised in commercial dispute contexts.

In practice, mediation, particularly through institutional platforms such as the Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse, remains the most prominent ADR mechanism outside arbitration, with other processes being adopted depending on the nature and technical complexity of the dispute.

It is not unusual for the Courts to ask the parties whether they are willing to settle their dispute. There is no universal statutory requirement that parties engage in ADR before commencing litigation in all cases. However, in practice, there are significant procedural and contractual frameworks that either encourage or, in certain circumstances, effectively require parties to explore ADR before resorting to the courts.

First, where parties have contractually agreed to an ADR mechanism, most commonly arbitration or mediation, as a condition precedent to litigation, such agreement is binding. A failure to comply with such a pre-condition may render any court action premature and incompetent. In the case of arbitration clauses, the court will typically decline jurisdiction and stay proceedings, thereby compelling the parties to submit to arbitration in accordance with their agreement.

Secondly, the Rules of Court in several jurisdictions, particularly in Lagos State and the Federal Capital Territory, incorporate mandatory pre-action protocols and case management procedures designed to promote ADR. Under these frameworks, parties are required, at the pre-action stage or during the Case Management Conference (CMC), to explore amicable settlement options, often through referral to institutional ADR platforms such as the Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse or the Abuja Multi-Door Courthouse.

The consequences of non-compliance depend on the nature of the obligation, as outlined below.

• Contractual ADR clauses: Non-compliance may result in a stay or dismissal of the court proceedings for want of jurisdiction or prematurity.
• Statutory or rules-based requirements: Failure to comply with pre-action protocols may render the action incompetent and liable to be struck out.
• Case management directives: Non-compliance may attract procedural sanctions, including adverse cost orders or delays in the progression of the case.

Accordingly, while ADR is not universally mandatory, it is increasingly embedded within both contractual arrangements and procedural rules, with tangible consequences for parties who fail to engage with it where required.

ADR plays a significant and increasingly impactful role in dispute resolution in Nigeria. Where successfully deployed, it obviates the need for protracted litigation or arbitration, thereby saving time and costs and preserving commercial relationships. Where parties reach a settlement through ADR – particularly mediation – the terms of settlement are typically reduced to writing, executed by the parties and endorsed by the ADR Judge or Mediator. Such a settlement may then be entered and adopted by the court as a consent judgment, thereby acquiring the same binding force and enforceability as a judgment delivered after a full trial.

Importantly, engagement in ADR does not, in itself, extinguish or prejudice a party’s right to pursue litigation or arbitration where settlement is not achieved. Rather, ADR is complementary to and not a substitute for, formal adjudicatory processes.

ADR processes and litigation cannot run concurrently; they must proceed one at a time. Ideally, ADR is usually resorted to before instituting a Court action, but subject to the circumstances of each case, it can be resorted to before judgment is given in a matter. If litigation is pending and the parties resort to ADR, the terms of the settlement reached would be presented to the Court and entered as a consent judgment.

Critically, under Section 71 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, the period between the commencement of an arbitration and its termination is excluded from the computation of time for the purpose of the Limitation Law. This ensures that a party is not “timed out” of Court while genuinely attempting to settle via ADR.

ADR may be engaged at various stages of a dispute in Nigeria, depending on the nature of the dispute, the parties’ agreement and the procedural context.

In practice, ADR is most commonly invoked prior to the commencement of formal proceedings, particularly when parties seek an expedient and cost-effective resolution. However, it is not uncommon for ADR to be pursued after litigation has commenced, either voluntarily by the parties or upon referral by the court, typically during case management or pre-trial stages. In such instances, proceedings are usually stayed to enable the parties to explore a settlement. Where ADR is successful, the terms of settlement are presented to the court and entered as a consent judgment, thereby bringing the litigation to an end.

With respect to limitation periods, the position is now clarified under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023. Section 71 of the Act provides that the period between the commencement of arbitration and its termination shall be excluded in computing time for the purposes of any applicable limitation law. This ensures that a party is not prejudiced or time-barred while bona fide pursuing arbitration.

However, it is important to note that this statutory suspension applies specifically to arbitration. In the case of other ADR mechanisms, such as mediation or negotiation, there is no automatic suspension of limitation periods unless otherwise agreed by the parties or provided for by specific rules.

The allocation of costs in ADR proceedings in Nigeria depends largely on the nature of the ADR mechanism, the applicable rules and, most importantly, the agreement of the parties.

In arbitration, the arbitral tribunal typically has the power to determine costs, subject to the parties’ agreement and any applicable institutional rules. Costs generally include arbitrators’ fees, administrative expenses, legal fees and other costs incurred in the proceedings. The prevailing principle is that costs follow the event, such that the unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear all or a substantial portion of the costs. However, tribunals retain a broad discretion and may apportion costs between the parties, having regard to factors such as the conduct of the parties and the outcome of the proceedings.

In mediation and other non-adjudicatory ADR processes, costs are usually shared equally between the parties, unless otherwise agreed. Each party typically bears its own legal costs. Where the mediation is conducted under an institutional framework, such as the Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse, the applicable rules may prescribe how administrative and mediator fees are to be borne.

Where ADR results in a settlement, the parties are at liberty to agree on the allocation of costs as part of the settlement terms. Such an agreement is often incorporated into the settlement agreement or consent judgment.

In summary, while arbitration permits a more formal and discretionary approach to cost allocation, often aligned with the outcome of the dispute, non-binding ADR mechanisms such as mediation are generally characterised by cost-sharing arrangements, subject to party agreement.

The Nigerian courts have, over time, adopted a strongly pro-ADR stance, actively encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as an integral component of the justice delivery system. This policy orientation is driven by the need to promote efficiency, reduce court congestion and facilitate the expeditious resolution of disputes.

Legal fees in Nigeria are regulated by a combination of statutory instruments and professional oversight mechanisms that aim to ensure fairness, transparency and the maintenance of professional standards within the legal profession.

The principal regulatory framework is the Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order 2023 (“the Remuneration Order”), which prescribes guidelines for the charging of legal fees. The Order sets out minimum fee thresholds, particularly in respect of certain categories of transactions and services, with a view to preventing undercutting and maintaining the integrity of the profession. It also provides indicative scales and factors to be considered in determining appropriate fees.

In addition to the Remuneration Order, legal practitioners are guided by broader professional principles, including the nature and complexity of the matter, the time and skill required, the value of the subject matter and the level of responsibility assumed.

In practice, while the Remuneration Order provides a regulatory baseline, legal fees, particularly in contentious and high-value commercial matters, are often negotiated and agreed between counsel and client, subject always to compliance with applicable professional rules.

The availability of third-party funding in Nigeria depends on the dispute resolution mechanism in question and remains a developing area of law.

Traditionally, under Nigerian law, third-party funding arrangements in litigation have been viewed with caution, largely due to the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty, which historically restrict non-party funding of litigation in exchange for a share of the proceeds. As a result, there is no clear statutory framework expressly permitting third-party funding in court proceedings and its enforceability remains uncertain.

However, the position is materially different in arbitration. The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 has expressly recognised and legitimised third-party funding in arbitral proceedings. In particular, Section 61 of the Act permits parties to obtain funding from external entities to finance arbitration in exchange for a return tied to the outcome of the dispute. The Act also introduces a framework for disclosure of funding arrangements, thereby enhancing transparency and aligning Nigeria with international best practice.

Accordingly, while third-party funding is now firmly established and permissible in arbitration, its application in litigation remains unsettled and subject to legal constraints, pending further judicial or legislative clarification.

Contingency fee arrangements are recognised and permitted in Nigeria, subject to regulatory safeguards.

Such arrangements are governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (“RPC”), which allows legal practitioners to agree with clients that their remuneration will be contingent upon the successful outcome of a matter. Typically, this may take the form of a percentage of the sum recovered or a success-based fee structure.

The RPC requires that any such arrangement must satisfy certain conditions, including that:

• the fee agreement is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to the risk and uncertainty of recovery;
• the agreement is not vitiated by fraud, mistake, undue influence or any other factor that would render it inequitable;
• the arrangement is not contrary to public policy; and
• it is reasonably apparent that the client has a bona fide and sustainable cause of action.

Insurance coverage for disputes in Nigeria exists, but it is limited in scope and less developed and widespread than in some other jurisdictions.

In principle, parties may obtain insurance coverage that responds to risks arising from litigation, arbitration or ADR. In practice, standalone dispute funding or litigation insurance products are not widely available in Nigeria. Coverage is typically embedded in broader insurance policies rather than procured specifically for dispute resolution. That said, the market is evolving, particularly in light of the growing acceptance of third-party funding in arbitration under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023. This may, over time, drive increased development of insurance and risk-transfer products tailored to dispute resolution.

Dispute resolution costs are, in principle, recoverable in Nigeria, both in litigation and arbitration, although the extent of recovery is subject to the discretion of the court or arbitral tribunal.

In litigation, the general rule is that costs follow the event, meaning that the successful party is typically entitled to an award of costs against the unsuccessful party. However, such awards are discretionary and are often modest in practice. Nigerian courts typically award costs as a contribution towards expenses incurred, rather than full indemnity for legal fees. As a result, while costs are routinely awarded, they rarely reflect the actual legal fees incurred, particularly in complex commercial disputes.

In arbitration, the position is somewhat different. Arbitral tribunals generally have broader discretion to award costs and may, depending on the applicable rules and the parties’ agreement, award costs on a more substantial or even full indemnity basis. As in litigation, the prevailing party will often seek to recover costs, although the tribunal may apportion costs between the parties where appropriate.

In mediation and other non-binding ADR processes, there is no adjudicatory award of costs. Instead, costs are typically borne equally by the parties, unless otherwise agreed as part of the settlement terms.

Accordingly, while cost recovery is available in Nigeria, particularly in litigation and arbitration, it is not absolute and parties should not assume full reimbursement of their legal expenses.

In Nigeria, the award of costs is discretionary, whether in litigation or arbitration and is guided by well-established principles aimed at achieving fairness between the parties.

In exercising this discretion, courts and arbitral tribunals typically take into account the following factors:

• outcome of the case – the general principle is that costs follow the event, such that the successful party is entitled to costs, although this is not applied rigidly;
• conduct of the parties – this includes whether a party acted reasonably, complied with procedural rules and court orders or engaged in dilatory, frivolous or obstructive conduct;
• complexity and importance of the matter – more complex or high-value disputes may justify higher costs awards, particularly where significant time and expertise were required;
• time and resources expended – the court or tribunal may consider the extent of legal work undertaken, including the number of appearances, volume of documentation and overall effort involved;
• success on issues – where a party succeeds only in part, the court or tribunal may apportion costs accordingly;
• settlement efforts – the willingness (or refusal) of a party to explore settlement, including ADR, may influence the award of costs; and
• terms of any contractual arrangement – in some cases, contracts may include provisions relating to costs or indemnity, which the court or tribunal may take into account.

In practice, while these factors guide the exercise of discretion, Nigerian courts tend to award moderate or nominal costs, rather than full indemnity, whereas arbitral tribunals may adopt a more flexible approach depending on the applicable rules and the parties’ agreement.

Availability of interim relief is discussed in 2.6 Interim Relief.

Nigerian courts are empowered to grant interim relief in support of arbitration and they exercise this jurisdiction where there is a compelling need to preserve the subject matter of the dispute or prevent injustice.

This power is expressly recognised under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023. In particular, Section 19 of the Act authorises the courts to grant interim measures of protection in relation to arbitral proceedings, whether the seat of arbitration is in Nigeria or elsewhere. Such measures may include injunctions, asset preservation orders or other forms of relief necessary to safeguard the effectiveness of the arbitral process.

While interim relief is most commonly associated with arbitration, courts may also grant similar preservative measures in support of ADR processes generally, particularly where necessary to protect the subject matter of the dispute pending resolution.

Accordingly, Nigerian courts play a supportive and facilitative role, ensuring that arbitration and ADR proceedings are not rendered ineffective by the absence of coercive powers.

Applications for interim reliefs are generally made at the case management or pre-trial stage. However, they can also be made midway if an emerging threat needs to be addressed.

A party may apply for security for costs in Nigeria, both in litigation and, in appropriate cases, in arbitration.

Security for costs is a discretionary remedy by which the court orders a claimant (or, in some cases, an appellant) to provide security, typically by way of deposit or bank guarantee, for the defendant’s costs of defending the action, in the event that the claim fails.

A party may apply for interim injunctions under Nigerian law. Such applications are typically made at the early stage of proceedings, often before the defendant has been put on notice and are designed to address situations of real urgency.

An interim injunction is usually granted pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction. Its primary purpose is to preserve the res and maintain the status quo so that the subject matter of the dispute is not destroyed, dissipated or otherwise compromised before the court has an opportunity to hear the parties fully.

The courts grant interim injunctions only in exceptional circumstances, where there is clear evidence of:

• real urgency or emergency;
• a risk of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; and
• the necessity to prevent a fait accompli that would render subsequent proceedings nugatory.

At this stage, the court does not engage in a detailed examination of the merits of the substantive dispute or resolve factual issues. The focus is limited to ensuring that the parties’ rights are temporarily protected pending a fuller hearing.

Accordingly, interim injunctions are a short-term, protective remedy, granted sparingly and strictly to preserve the status quo until the court can properly determine the interlocutory application.

Under Nigerian law, a party may apply for summary judgment and such applications are typically made before trial to secure a prompt determination of claims that do not merit a full trial.

Summary judgment is available in circumstances where the claimant can demonstrate that the defendant has no real or reasonable defence to the claim. It is designed to prevent unnecessary delay and expense in cases where the defence is merely formal, evasive or lacking in substance.

In determining such an application, the court will examine the affidavit evidence and the proposed defence to ascertain whether a bona fide triable issue exists. The settled principle is that summary judgment will only be granted where, even assuming the facts put forward by the defendant to be true, they do not disclose any defence in law.

Conversely, where the defendant is able to show a genuine issue requiring trial or raises a defence that is not frivolous or vexatious, the court will decline to grant summary judgment and instead grant leave to defend the action.

In practice, summary judgment is most commonly utilised in liquidated monetary claims and straightforward commercial disputes, where the defendant’s liability is clear and there is no substantive defence to be tried.

For a class action to be sustained, the class must be sufficiently numerous such that the joinder of all members would be impracticable. In addition, there must exist common questions of law or fact affecting the class and the claims or defences of the representative party must be such as to adequately protect the interests of the class as a whole.

The scope of such proceedings has traditionally been limited to specific categories of disputes, including matters relating to the interpretation of written instruments or statutes, the administration of estates and disputes concerning trust property, as well as customary, family or communal property.

Importantly, the threshold in such proceedings is that members of the class must have a common or shared interest, though not necessarily identical claims in all respects, provided that the relief sought is capable of benefiting the class collectively.

A distinguishing procedural feature is that the appointment of the representative party is subject to the approval of the court and notice of such appointment is typically required, particularly where the interests of absent or unascertainable persons are involved. In this regard, it is recognised that members of the class may not always be individually identifiable or ascertainable, provided that they share a sufficient commonality of interest in the subject matter.

Both monetary and non-monetary reliefs are available in class action, with damages typically calculated on an aggregate basis rather than through individual assessments. The primary goal of this relief is to put class members back in the position they would have been in without the wrongful act occurring.

Class actions and mass claims are not commonly pursued in arbitration in Nigeria.

The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 does not make express provision for class or collective arbitration. As such, the Nigerian arbitral framework is generally structured around bilateral proceedings between defined parties, rather than multi-party or class-based claims.

A notable development is the increasing number of claims by drivers against e-ride hailing companies, in which groups of drivers challenge issues related to contractual classification, commission structures, deactivation policies and broader labour and employment rights. While such claims are not always formally structured as class actions, they are often pursued in a representative capacity or through coordinated individual claims, reflecting a growing willingness to test collective rights in the gig economy.

Similarly, there has been a rise in data protection-related claims, particularly by data subjects against data controllers, following the strengthening of Nigeria’s data protection framework. These claims typically arise from alleged breaches of privacy rights, unlawful processing of personal data or data security failures. Given the inherently widespread impact of such breaches, they lend themselves to multi-party or representative litigation and are increasingly being framed as collective claims, even within the constraints of existing procedural mechanisms.

The approach to disclosure of documents in Nigeria is limited, party-driven and court-controlled, rather than expansive. There is no general duty of full and continuous disclosure. Instead, parties are required to frontload the documents they intend to rely on at the commencement of proceedings.

Beyond frontloading, disclosure is obtained through discovery, which is granted upon application to the court. A party seeking discovery must identify specific documents or classes of documents and the court will only order disclosure where such documents are relevant to the issues in dispute and necessary for the fair determination of the case. Broad or speculative “fishing expeditions” are not permitted.

The duty of disclosure is therefore limited to documents within a party’s possession, custody or power and is subject to established protections, including legal professional privilege. In appropriate cases, courts may also order third-party disclosure. Overall, the regime seeks to balance fairness with efficiency by ensuring targeted, relevant disclosure rather than wide-ranging document production.

The two types of privilege that are recognised in our jurisdiction are State and Private Privilege.

State Privilege covers persons who work in the public service of the country. Public service has been defined by Section 318 of the Nigerian constitution to mean the service of the State in any capacity in respect of the Government of the State. Instances of this type of privilege can be seen in Section 191 of the EA, which provides that, “no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communication made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interest will suffer by the disclosure”.

Private privilege encompasses several categories of protected communications. These include:

• legal professional privilege, covering confidential communications between a lawyer and client made for the purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice (Sections 192–195 Evidence Act);
• marital privilege, protecting communications between spouses (Sections 184–185 Evidence Act); and
• certain protections relating to title deeds and documents, particularly where their production may prejudice proprietary interests.

Documents falling within these categories may be withheld from disclosure unless the privilege is waived.

Nigeria recognises the right to withhold evidence on grounds of confidentiality.

Generally, where such a document is not “without Prejudice”, it can be tendered in law. However, the Official Secrets Act restricts certain documents from being tendered in law and criminalises certain acts, especially where they prejudice the government. See Section 26 Evidence Act

The Evidence Act provides for privileged communication, which is an exception to the admissibility of all relevant evidence. See Sections 188,190(1), 191 of the Evidence Act

The recognised right to confidentiality is subject to specific exceptions where disclosure is necessary to prevent harm to the public interest or the safety of individuals. Consequently, the privilege of confidentiality may be waived in instances involving the commission of a crime or the management of public health risks, such as infectious diseases.

Witness evidence in Nigeria is governed principally by the Nigerian Evidence Act (2011) and the applicable Rules of Court.

In civil proceedings, the modern practice, particularly in High Courts, is the use of written witness depositions, commonly referred to as Witness Statements on Oath. These are filed and frontloaded at the commencement of the action (especially in matters commenced by writ of summons) and constitute the witness’s evidence-in-chief. The witness subsequently attends court to adopt the deposition on oath, after which the evidence is deemed to have been given. While this is the general rule, there are limited exceptions, ie, in matrimonial proceedings, where oral evidence may still be preferred, subject to the court’s discretion.

In criminal proceedings, however oral testimony remains the primary mode of presenting evidence, with witnesses giving evidence-in-chief directly before the court.

In both civil and criminal proceedings, witnesses are subject to cross-examination by the opposing party and, where necessary, re-examination. Cross-examination remains a fundamental feature of the adversarial system and serves to test the credibility, consistency and probative value of the witness’s evidence.

Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides for the admissibility of expert evidence in Nigeria. The Court can resort to expert evidence when it must form an opinion about a foreign law, custom or customary law, point of science or art or the identity of handwriting or fingerprints. The expert need not have formal training, unless his or her claim to expertise is based on formal training. Otherwise, it is sufficient if he or she has acquired knowledge and skill from exposure to activities or engagement in a particular vocation. It is important to confirm, before presenting the expert witness, that the evidence sought to be tendered is relevant to the fact in issue and admissible under the laws and rules of practice. Relevance is fundamental to the admissibility of evidence, whether oral or documentary. The established principle in our law of evidence is that once a piece of evidence is relevant, it is admissible.

Foreign judgments may be recognised and enforced in Nigeria through two principal mechanisms:

• enforcement at common law; and
• statutory registration.

Under the common law route, a foreign judgment is enforced by commencing a fresh action in a Nigerian court, seeking to rely on it as creating a debt between the parties. The claimant must establish that the judgment is final and conclusive, was delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction and is not affected by fraud, public policy concerns or a denial of fair hearing.

Alternatively, foreign judgments may be enforced by statutory registration under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act or the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance. Under these regimes, a qualifying foreign judgment may be registered in a Nigerian court within the prescribed time. Upon registration, the judgment is treated as if it were a judgment of a Nigerian court.

Following recognition or registration, enforcement is carried out in accordance with the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, through mechanisms such as writs of execution, garnishee proceedings or other enforcement processes. Accordingly, once properly registered, a foreign judgment assumes the same status and enforceability as a domestic judgment.

The enforcement of arbitral awards in Nigeria, whether domestic or foreign, is governed principally by the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (“AMA”), supplemented by the Rules of Court.

Enforcement of Domestic Arbitral Awards

A domestic arbitral award is enforced by applying to a High Court (Federal or State) by way of a Motion on Notice. The application is typically supported by:

• an affidavit;
• the original arbitral award or a certified true copy; and
• the arbitration agreement or a certified copy.

Under procedural rules such as Order 28 Rule 3 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, the application is accompanied by a written address. Once the court is satisfied as to the validity of the award, it may grant leave to enforce it as a judgment of the court. In practice, parties are generally expected to comply voluntarily with arbitral awards, given their binding nature.

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Foreign arbitral awards may be enforced in Nigeria through the following mechanisms.

• Recognition and enforcement under the AMA: Section 57 of the AMA provides that arbitral awards, irrespective of the country in which they were made, are recognised as binding and enforceable upon application to the court. The applicant is required to produce:
1. the original award or a certified copy;
2. the arbitration agreement or a certified copy; and
3. where necessary, a certified English translation.
• Action upon the award: A foreign arbitral award may also be enforced by commencing a fresh action in court, relying on the award as creating a binding obligation. This route is particularly useful where statutory enforcement mechanisms are unavailable.

Upon successful recognition or registration, both domestic and foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in Nigeria in the same manner as court judgments, typically through execution processes under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

The duration of enforcement proceedings in Nigeria is largely fact-specific and depends on the enforcement route adopted, the nature of the judgment or award and whether the process is contested.

Where enforcement is straightforward and uncontested, for example, an application to enforce a domestic or foreign arbitral award by motion on notice, the process may be concluded within a few months (typically two to six months), depending on the court’s docket and procedural efficiency. Similarly, the registration of a foreign judgment under the relevant statutes may be relatively expeditious if no objection is raised.

However, where enforcement is challenged, for instance, through applications to set aside, resist recognition or dispute jurisdiction, the proceedings may become protracted and extend to 12 months or significantly longer, particularly if appeals are pursued. Additional delays may also arise at the execution stage, especially in garnishee proceedings involving financial institutions or government entities.

In relation to foreign judgments, enforcement may be refused where:

• the foreign court lacked jurisdiction over the matter or the defendant;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• enforcement would be contrary to public policy in Nigeria;
• the judgment is not final and conclusive;
• the judgment debtor was not properly notified of the proceedings or was denied fair hearing;
• the party seeking enforcement is not the person entitled to the benefit of the judgment; or
• the matter was already res judicata at the time the foreign judgment was delivered.

In the case of foreign arbitral awards, similar principles apply, as codified under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023. Enforcement may be refused where:

• a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is invalid under the applicable law;
• the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the proceedings or was otherwise unable to present its case;
• the award deals with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• the composition of the tribunal or the procedure adopted was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement;
• the award has not yet become binding or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority;
• the subject matter is not arbitrable under Nigerian law; or
• enforcement would be contrary to public policy.

Accordingly, while Nigerian courts are generally inclined to recognise and enforce foreign judgments and arbitral awards, such enforcement is subject to these limited but fundamental safeguards.

There is currently no specific, dedicated legislation regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dispute resolution in Nigeria.

The impact of artificial intelligence on dispute resolution in Nigeria is yet to be fully felt across the market, particularly in the absence of any formal regulatory framework governing its use. As a result, adoption remains largely ad hoc and practitioner-driven, rather than systemically embedded within the judicial or arbitral process.

That said, among firms and practitioners that have embraced AI tools, the benefits have been significant. AI is increasingly being deployed to enhance legal research, document review, drafting and case management, resulting in marked improvements in efficiency, speed and cost-effectiveness at the practice level. Similarly, some courts have begun experimenting with technology-enabled solutions, such as digital transcription tools, though this remains limited.

Overall, while AI has not yet transformed dispute resolution at an institutional level in Nigeria, its early adoption by forward-looking practitioners suggests a strong potential for future integration, particularly as the legal and regulatory landscape evolves.

The Nigerian courts have not yet fully embraced artificial intelligence as a systemic tool for dispute resolution, although there are early signs of incremental adoption. The use of AI remains limited and largely experimental, with some courts deploying technology-assisted tools such as speech-to-text and real-time transcription systems to improve the accuracy and speed of court proceedings. However, there is currently no formal policy or regulatory framework governing the use of AI within the judiciary and its adoption is neither uniform nor institutionalised.

Looking ahead, it is hoped that the use of AI in dispute resolution in Nigeria will expand progressively, driven by the need for greater efficiency, cost reduction and improved case management. Over time, this may include broader deployment of AI in case scheduling, document management, virtual hearings and possibly predictive analytics. However, meaningful evolution will likely depend on the development of a clear regulatory framework, judicial acceptance and substantial investment in technological infrastructure. Until then, AI will continue to evolve incrementally, led primarily by private sector innovation rather than institutional reform.