Introduction
Both Nigeria and the United Kingdom (UK) have recently taken significant steps to update their arbitration laws. Nigeria carried out a sweeping reform through the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, replacing almost two-decade-old legislation with a system aligned to global standards. This overhaul corrected structural weaknesses in its arbitration framework and established stronger foundations for both domestic and international proceedings. By contrast, the UK will adopt a more targeted approach with its Arbitration Act, 2025, which comes into force on August 1, 2025. Rather than rewriting its entire system, the UK has opted for precise amendments addressing practical issues identified through case law and stakeholder consultation.
This article compares these two distinct reform strategies and considers the innovations introduced in the UK’s 2025 Act that Nigeria could adapt to strengthen its own arbitration regime and reinforce its position as a regional hub. While Nigeria has opted for wholesale modernization and the UK for incremental refinement, both frameworks reflect a commitment to bringing arbitration practices in line with international best standards.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s 2023 Act replaces the long-standing Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A18 2004, with a modern, flexible, and internationally harmonized system. Closely modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, it integrates arbitration and mediation into a single statute.
Key features include:
-
Emergency arbitration, enabling interim relief before the tribunal is fully constituted.
-
Expedited proceedings to streamline cases where appropriate.
-
Third-party funding recognition, broadening access to arbitration.
-
Stronger judicial support, enforceability of mediation settlements, and clearer requirements for arbitrator independence and disclosure.
Together, these changes significantly modernize Nigeria’s arbitration landscape.
United Kingdom
The UK’s 2025 Act takes a different path. Rather than creating a new statute, it amends the Arbitration Act 1996, preserving stability while refining key areas. Notable updates include:
-
A default rule that the law of the seat governs arbitration agreements.
-
A statutory duty of disclosure, extending to facts arbitrators “ought reasonably to know.”
-
Enhanced immunity protections for arbitrators in cases of resignation or removal applications.
-
Express powers for tribunals to summarily dismiss meritless claims, promoting efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Lessons for Nigeria from the UK
While Nigeria’s Act is ambitious and comprehensive, the UK’s incremental changes highlight valuable refinements Nigeria could adopt. Key lessons include:
-
Summary Dismissal Powers – Nigeria lacks explicit provisions for rejecting frivolous claims early. The UK’s Section 39A empowers tribunals to summarily dismiss hopeless claims, saving time and costs. Nigeria could strengthen its efficiency by introducing similar authority.
-
Arbitrator Disclosure Duties – The UK requires disclosure not only of what an arbitrator knows but also what they “ought reasonably to know.” Nigeria’s standard, based solely on actual knowledge, could be upgraded to align with global expectations and reduce risks of award challenges.
-
Jurisdictional Challenges – UK reforms curb abuse of Section 67 challenges by limiting new evidence and preventing full re-hearings. Nigeria’s open-ended review process allows tactical delay. Narrowing this would enhance efficiency and party confidence.
-
Cost Recovery Without Jurisdiction – The UK allows tribunals to award costs even where they ultimately lack jurisdiction. Nigeria’s Act leaves a gap, creating incentives for opportunistic jurisdictional objections. Addressing this would close a major loophole.
-
Expanded Arbitrator Immunity – UK reforms provide express immunity for arbitrators facing resignation or removal proceedings, unless they act in bad faith. Nigeria’s provisions are more limited, leaving arbitrators exposed to cost liabilities. Broader protection would promote independence and attract experienced arbitrators.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The UK’s targeted reforms—covering summary dismissal, stronger disclosure standards, expanded immunity, cost allocation in jurisdictional disputes, and limits on jurisdictional challenges—offer practical solutions to issues Nigeria’s wholesale reform overlooked.
For Nigeria, adopting similar refinements would:
-
Deter frivolous claims,
-
Enhance arbitrator accountability while safeguarding independence,
-
Prevent delay tactics in jurisdictional disputes, and
-
Promote fairness in cost allocation.
Rather than waiting for another full overhaul, Nigeria can introduce incremental amendments or judicial clarifications to close these gaps. Doing so would consolidate its advances under the 2023 Act and secure its growing role as West Africa’s leading arbitration hub—combining comprehensive reform with strategic refinements aligned to international best practice.
Kindly Share This!!!
Barristerng
0 Comments