Enforcing Arbitral Awards in Nigeria under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023

Introduction

The finality of an arbitral award is often heralded as a cornerstone of its efficacy in dispute resolution. However, the true measure of arbitration's success lies not merely in the issuance of an award, but in its effective enforcement. In Nigeria, the landscape for arbitral award enforcement has undergone a significant transformation with the enactment of the Arbitration and Mediation Act (“AMA”) 20231 which aims to modernise Nigeria's arbitration framework, align it with international best practices, and enhance its attractiveness as a hub for commercial dispute resolution.2

While the AMA 2023 introduces progressive provisions to streamline enforcement, practitioners must navigate a complex interplay among legal frameworks, strategic challenges, and the nuances of comparative jurisprudence. A critical, yet often overlooked, component of this process is the role of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (“SCPA”),3 which governs the actual execution of awards once they have been recognised by the courts.

This article delves into the legal framework for enforcing arbitral awards under the AMA 2023, explores the strategic challenges that often arise, and offers comparative perspectives from leading arbitration jurisdictions, while providing a detailed analysis of the SCPA's role in the enforcement journey.

The true promise of arbitration - efficient and “ final dispute resolution - can only be fully realised when awards are not just rendered, but robustly enforced.

The Legal Framework for Enforcement under the AMA 2023

The AMA 2023 significantly strengthens the legal basis for the recognition and enforcement of both domestic and international arbitral awards in Nigeria. At its core, the Act reinforces the principle that an arbitral award is binding and subject to certain conditions, shall be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court.

1. 2. Recognition and Enforcement Enforcement of Interim (Sections 57 & 58): Measures (Sections 19 & 28):

Section 57 of the AMA 2023 outlines the A notable innovation of the AMA 2023 is the procedure for applying to the High Court explicit provision for the enforcement of or Federal High Court4 for the recognition interim measures issued by the Court, an and enforcement of an arbitral award.

The arbitral tribunal or an emergency arbitrator. application must be supported by the Section 20 empowers a tribunal to grant authenticated original award (or a certified various interim measures, including orders copy) and the arbitration agreement (or a for preserving assets or evidence, provided certified copy).5 Crucially, Section 58 the creditor can show the risk of irreparable meticulously enumerates the grounds harm and a reasonable chance of success upon which recognition or enforcement on the merits.7 Section 28 further stipulates may be refused.6 These grounds closely that an interim measure, irrespective of the mirror Article V of the New York country in which it was issued, shall be Convention and Article 36 of the recognised as binding and enforced upon UNCITRAL Model Law, reflecting Nigeria's application to the court, unless specific commitment to international harmonisation grounds for refusal are established.8 This and a pro-enforcement stance. provision is a significant step forward, providing teeth to interim relief and preventing parties from dissipating assets before a final award can be enforced.

3. The Award Review Tribunal (“ART”) (Section 56):

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the AMA 2023 is the introduction of the Award Review Tribunal (ART) under Section 56. This optional mechanism allows parties, by agreement in their arbitration agreement, to submit an arbitral award for review by a second arbitral tribunal. The ART can confirm, vary, or set aside the award based on grounds similar to those available for court-led challenges.9 If the ART upholds the award, a court can only set it aside on limited grounds, primarily non-arbitrability or public policy. Conversely, if the ART sets aside an award, the court retains the power to reinstate it if the ART's decision is deemed "unsupportable".10 The ART is a novel concept that aims to provide an internal arbitral review mechanism, potentially reducing the burden on national courts and fostering greater confidence in the arbitral process.

The Interplay with the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA)

While the AMA 2023 provides the legal basis for recognising an award, the actual "realisation" of the award, the physical attachment of assets or the recovery of funds is governed by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA). This is where the legal victory in the arbitral room meets the practical reality of the Nigerian judicial enforcement system.

1. 2. Garnishee Proceedings Execution against Movable and (Section 83 SCPA): Immovable Property:

One of the most potent tools for enforcing Beyond garnishee proceedings, the SCPA a recognised arbitral award is garnishee provides for the attachment and sale of the proceedings under Section 83 of the debtor's movable property (chattels)11 and, SCPA. This process allows an award if those are insufficient, their immovable creditor (now a judgment creditor) to property (land and buildings).12 This process attach debts owed by a third party to the involves the issuance of a writ of fieri facias award debtor, typically a bank. The court (fi.fa), which authorises the sheriff to seize first issues a garnishee order nisi, which and sell the debtor's goods. For immovable freezes the funds in the debtor's account. property, the process is more complex; the If the garnishee (the bank) cannot show Judgment Creditor may apply to the Court cause why the funds should not be paid to for a writ of execution against the the creditor, the court makes the order immovable property of the judgment absolute, directing the bank to release the debtor. funds. This is often the most effective way to achieve recovery in a multi-banking system like Nigeria's.

3. Enforcement Across State Lines (Section 105:

In a federal system like Nigeria, a debtor's assets may be located in a different state from where the award was recognised. Section 105 of the SCPA provides a mechanism for the "registration of judgments" (including recognised awards) across states. Once a recognised award is registered in the High Court of another state, it can be enforced in that state as if it were a judgment of that court. This is crucial for creditors dealing with debtors who have a nationwide footprint.

Comparative Perspectives on Enforcement

Examining the enforcement regimes in other leading arbitration jurisdictions will provide valuable insights and benchmarks for Nigeria.

1. United Kingdom (Arbitration Act 1996):

The UK Arbitration Act 1996, as well as the UK Arbitration Act 2025, provides a robust framework for the enforcement of arbitral awards. Section 66 allows an award to be enforced in the same manner as a judgment of the court, with the court's leave. Challenges to awards are primarily limited to jurisdictional issues,13 and serious procedural irregularity.14 The UK courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement stance, upholding the principle of minimal judicial intervention.

2. Singapore (International Arbitration Act):

Singapore is a signatory to the New York Convention and recognises and enforces foreign arbitral awards on the basis of reciprocity. The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Singapore are principally governed by the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA) and the Arbitration Act 2021 (AA). The IAA applies to awards arising from international arbitrations seated in Singapore (s 19 IAA), as well as to awards made pursuant to arbitration agreements in the territory of another New York Convention contracting state (s 29 IAA). Section 5 of the IAA sets out the criteria for determining whether an arbitration is international in nature. The AA, on the other hand, governs domestic arbitrations. It applies to the enforcement of awards made in domestic arbitration proceedings (s 46(1) AA) and to awards made in states that are not parties to the New York Convention (s 46(3) AA).

Under sections 19 and 29 of the IAA and section 46(1) of the AA, an arbitral award may, with the leave of the High Court of Singapore, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the Court. Once leave is granted, judgment may be entered in terms of the award. Procedural matters relating to recognition and enforcement are governed by the Rules of Court 2021, particularly Order 48 (for matters under the IAA) and Order 34 (for matters under the AA).

Strategic Challenges in Enforcement

Despite the progressive provisions of the AMA 2023 and the established mechanisms of the SCPA, the enforcement of arbitral awards in Nigeria is not without its strategic challenges. 1. 2. The Enduring "Public Policy" Administrative Bottlenecks and Defence: Execution Logistics: Historically, the public policy defence has One of the most significant practical been a frequent and often misused challenges under the SCPA is navigating ground for resisting enforcement in the execution process through court Nigeria. Award debtors have routinely sheriffs. Whether the judgment creditor is invoked this defence, sometimes without pursuing attachment of property or substantive merit, leading to protracted garnishee proceedings, enforcement is litigation. However, recent judicial trends, rarely automatic.

Delays often stem from particularly in the wake of high-profile administrative bottlenecks, logistical cases such as Agro-Allied Development constraints, or deliberate resistance from EnterprisesLtdv. UnitedShippingTrading judgment debtors. As such, successful Co. Inc,15 indicate a more stringent and enforcement demands a proactive and disciplined approach by Nigerian courts. hands-on approach. Counsel must issue precise execution instructions, provide Courts are increasingly emphasising that accurate and detailed descriptions of public policy is not a catch-all defence and assets, and ensure that all required fees must be interpreted narrowly, aligning with and supporting documents are promptly international standards. Courts have drawn supplied.

Where resistance or obstruction is a distinction between awards that are anticipated, advance coordination with law merely unfavourable and those that enforcement agencies may be necessary to fundamentally violate Nigeria’s legal or ensure order and prevent disruption during moral framework. Where arbitration execution. In practice, diligent supervision proceedings complied with due process, and strategic planning are essential to and the award does not mandate illegality, converting a judgment on paper into actual courts have shown greater willingness to recovery. enforce.16 Mere allegations of error or procedural dissatisfaction are insufficient; the defence must demonstrate a fundamental violation of Nigeria’s legal or moral framework. 3. The Award Review Tribunal (“ART”): A Double-Edged Sword?

While the ART is designed to enhance the efficiency and finality of arbitration, its optional nature and the potential for further review introduce a new layer of complexity. If parties opt for an ART, it could, in some instances, prolong the overall dispute resolution timeline, especially if the ART’s decision is subsequently challenged in court. Arbitrators and counsel must carefully consider the strategic implications of including an ART clause in arbitration agreements, weighing the benefits of internal review against the potential for

Key Lessons and Recommended Best Practices for Nigeria

Nigeria's AMA 2023 draws meaningfully from various jurisdictions, but translating legislative intent into consistent enforcement practice requires deliberate institutional effort. Some priorities stand out such as:

 First, Nigerian courts must entrench a  The public register maintained by the culture of minimal judicial intervention, Corporate Affairs Commission constitutes a treating the public policy defence as a freely accessible and frequently underutilised narrow, last-resort safeguard confined to source of enforcement intelligence. fundamental violations of Nigeria's legal Throughout the recognition and enforcement order and not as a mechanism for re- process, counsel should conduct and examining the merits of an award. periodically refresh searches on the judgment Consistent judicial training and, in time, a debtor to identify: related corporate entities to dedicated commercial arbitration bench which assets may have been transferred; would anchor this culture institutionally. recent changes in directorship or shareholding that may indicate asset-stripping  The Federal High Court and State High or corporate restructuring; changes in Courts should issue consolidated practice registered address that may affect service or directions prescribing strict timelines for jurisdictional considerations; and filed financial enforcement applications, limiting statements that disclose the debtor's asset interlocutory challenges, and mandating position.

Where searches reveal suspicious expedited treatment of recognition transfers of assets to connected parties proceedings thereby closing the gap effected after the date of the arbitral award, between the AMA 2023's progressive counsel may have grounds to join those provisions and the procedural delays that parties to enforcement proceedings or to frustrate recovery in practice. apply to set aside such transfers as fraudulent or at an undervalue.  Nigeria must strengthen the practical infrastructure of execution under the SCPA  The most effective enforcement strategy is including mandatory asset disclosure by one that is embedded in the arbitration judgment debtors, greater coordination agreement at the contracting stage, well between courts and financial regulators in before any dispute arises.

Practitioners tracing assets, and clearer operational advising clients on transactional matters guidelines for sheriffs. Practitioners, for should ensure that arbitration clauses contain: their part, should conduct pre- a clearly designated institutional seat with an enforcement asset tracing exercises established set of rules, such as the Lagos before or immediately upon filing Court of Arbitration; an unambiguous choice recognition applications, rather than of governing law; and an express agreement waiting until after judgment to locate by both parties that any award rendered recoverable assets. pursuant to the clause may be enforced as a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction without further substantive review.

A deficiently drafted arbitration clause is among the most common sources of jurisdictional challenges that delay enforcement proceedings, in some cases, by several years.

Comparative Perspectives on Enforcement

The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, coupled with the procedural mechanisms of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, marks a pivotal moment for arbitration in Nigeria. The Act’s alignment with international best practices, particularly its narrow grounds for challenging awards and the enhanced enforceability of interim measures, positions Nigeria as a more attractive jurisdiction for dispute resolution.

However, the journey from award to recovery is rarely straightforward. Strategic challenges, including the persistent public policy defence, the novel complexities introduced by the Award Review Tribunal, and the practicalities of asset tracing and execution under the SCPA, demand a sophisticated and proactive approach from practitioners. The true promise of arbitration, efficient and final dispute resolution, can only be fully realised when awards are not just rendered, but robustly enforced, ensuring that the fall of the gavel truly signifies the end of the dispute and the beginning of recovery.

“ The true promise of arbitration — efficient and final dispute resolution — can only be fully realised when awards are not just rendered, but robustly enforced, ensuring that the fall of the gavel truly signifies the end of the dispute and the beginning of recovery.

Endnotes 12

1. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, s.92 2. International Bar Association, 'The Nigerian Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023: A Comparison with the Arbitration Conciliation Act 2004 and Global Practices' (IBA, 20 December 2023) <https://www.ibanet.org/the-nigerian-arbitration-and-mediation-act-2023> accessed 2 March 2026 3. Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, LFN 2004 4. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, s.91 5. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, s.57(2) 6.

The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, s.58(2)(a), The Court may only refuse enforcement of the award on the ground that the party to the arbitration agreement was under some capacity; the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law of the country where the award was made; proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator was not given, the award deals with a dispute that does not fall within the terms of the submission to arbitration etc. 7. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, s.21(1) 8. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, s.29(1) 9. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, s.55(3) 10. The Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, s.56(8) 11. Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004, s.20 12. Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004, s.44 13. The UK Arbitration Act, 1996, s.67; The UK Arbitration Act 2025, s.10 14.

The UK Arbitration Act, 1996, s.68 15. See the case of Agro-Allied Development Enterprises Ltd v. United Shipping Trading Co. Inc (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 258, the Court of Appeal rejected a public policy challenge to the enforcement of an arbitral award, holding that public policy must be construed narrowly and cannot be invoked as a catch-all objection. The Court emphasised that mere disagreement with the tribunal’s reasoning or dissatisfaction with its findings does not suffice to establish a violation of Nigerian public policy under section 52(2)(b) of the ACA. 16. See Mekwunyev. Imoukhuede(2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1690) 439 where the Court held that “it defeats the purpose of an agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration, if, after fully participating therein, a party is allowed to raise technical objections to defeat the award.

This is what the respondent tried to do at the court below, it must be discouraged”