Denis Ogunbowale of LeLaw Barristers & Solicitors reflects on the Arbitration and Mediation Bill, 2022, in his article, Reflections and Prospects of The Arbitration and Mediation Bill (AMB) 2022. He observes that creating a healthy dispute resolution framework is integral to every country’s sustainable and prosperous existence. He notes that the efficiency or otherwise of the dispute resolution mechanisms strongly impacts people’s confidence in them. In May 2022, the Nigerian Senate passed the AMB 2022 to improve the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) framework. Ogunbowale highlights notable provisions of AMB 2022, the likely effect on the ADR landscape, and the drawbacks of the Bill.

Chimezie Onuzulike, Associate at G. Elias & Co, in his article, An Appraisal of the Concept of Anti-Suit Injunction in International Arbitration, explains that Anti-suit injunctions are orders of national courts usually granted in common law jurisdictions, restraining a party from commencing an action concerning a dispute subject to an arbitration agreement or continuing one already commenced in defiance of an arbitration agreement. He reviews the stance of courts in relation to the grant of anti-suit injunctions. He argues that while anti-suit injunctions may not engender controversies in domestic arbitrations where a party institutes or intends to institute an action in national courts, the situation is different in international arbitration since such an injunction may be considered as an interference with the judicial process of a foreign sovereign state. Chimezie reviews the decision of the English Court in Specialised Vessel Services Ltd v Mop Marine Nigeria Limited and stresses the importance of anti-suit injunctions in protecting arbitration agreements in both international and domestic arbitrations.

Sixtus Iwuoha, formerly of Banwo & Igholado and now of the Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto Canada, in his article, Third-Party Funding in Nigeria Seated Arbitrations: Time To Join The Progressives, posits that Arbitration, once known as the low-cost cousin of litigation, has moved upscale with a heavy burden on the parties to bear legal fees and expenses incurred in the arbitral process. This has led disputing parties to sometimes resort to family, friends, personal savings and financial institutions alike to meet the costs of arbitration. In the context of litigation qua arbitration, Nigeria’s current legal regime prohibits the involvement of third-party funders/financiers in the dispute resolution process based on the common law doctrines of champerty and maintenance. However, court rulings and recent legislative intervention have introduced some measure of flexibility and relaxation in the interpretation of these doctrines leading to major in-roads in third party funding TPF in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Singapore. Sixtus concludes that notwithstanding certain debatable ethical concerns, the time is ripe for TPF in Nigeria seated arbitrations.

Ajibola Dalley, Partner, GRF Dalley and Partners Lagos Nigeria in his article, The Non-Interventionist Principle – Understanding Sections 30 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of Nigeria, notes that though the power of the court to intervene during the course of an arbitral proceeding is limited by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, some courts have  granted orders of injunction and proceeded to remove arbitrators on grounds of misconduct prior to the delivery of the arbitral award. He explores the propriety of pre-award injunctions and the removal of arbitrators on the grounds of misconduct by analysing sections 30 and 34 of the ACA and other principles of non-intervention replete in the Act.