Stephen Ilesanmi, Lecturer, University of Ibadan Nigeria and Foluke Moronkeji, Lecturer, Adeleke University Ede Nigeria, in their article, Rescuing Commercial Arbitration in Nigeria from Technicalities: A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in Mekwunye v Imoukhuede, review the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision in Mekwunye v Imoukhuede where the SC held that technicalities could not be used to impugn a patently regular arbitral award. The Court held that an arbitration clause would not be rendered invalid where it is possible to give meaning to it to give effect to the parties’ intention to arbitrate. Ilesanmi and Moronkeji argue that the SC decision has rescued arbitration from technicalities. They note that the decision has further bolstered the finality and bindingness of arbitral awards and the willingness of the Courts to enforce them and not allow a party who has arbitrated in good faith, to turn around and seek to nullify the same under flippant and atrocious guises.

Dr Lawal Ijaodola and Oluwaseun Oyekan, both formerly of G. Elias and now at the University of Oxford and Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom, respectively, in their article, Compelling Non-Signatories to Arbitral Proceedings in Nigeria, note that the basis of any arbitration in Nigeria is a written agreement between two or more parties to resolve their disputes by arbitration. However, in the case of Metroline (Nig.) Ltd. v Dikko (Metroline), the Court of Appeal held that an arbitral award was binding on a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement. Dr Ijaodola and Oyekan appraise Metroline and conclude that the reasonings of the Court of Appeal are not justified by statutes or judicial precedent. They also examine instances where non-signatories may be compelled to arbitration in Nigeria and found none of them was present in Metroline. However, the authors note that the reasonings in Metroline could be salvaged by three principles which, although alien to Nigerian law, could justify the decision.