APPEALS AND FINALITY OF ARBITRAL AWARD IN NIGERIA, UK AND USA: ANY CONFLICT?

Abstract

This paper examines the systemic conflict between appellate court intervention and arbitral finality under Nigeria’s Arbitration and Mediation Act (AMA) 2023. While arbitration aims to provide swift, cost-effective, and conclusive dispute resolution, award creditors frequently face protracted delays when award debtors leverage constitutional provisions—specifically the right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution—to initiate disguised appeals through the judicial hierarchy. Adopting a comparative legal approach, this paper evaluates legislative landscapes and judicial attitudes in Nigeria alongside the United Kingdom and the United States. The analysis reveals that while the UK utilizes rigorous leave filters under its Arbitration Act 1996 and the US employs expedited summary proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act, Nigeria’s framework remains vulnerable to tactical post-award litigation and lengthy stays of execution. To resolve this dilemma and preserve commercial confidence, the study recommends establishing specialized high court arbitration divisions, instituting a mandatory “pay-and-play” escrow rule for stays of execution, and enacting constitutional amendments to restrict interlocutory appeals to the Court of Appeal.