PAVING THE UNEVEN LANDSCAPE OF THE JURISPRUDENCE OF BINDING CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION IN NIGERIA

Abstract

Several decades have passed, yet the law on customary arbitration in Nigeria remains unsettled regarding the circumstances in which a customary settlement of a dispute becomes legally binding. Two parallel streams of judicial decisions, both extending to the Supreme Court, have continued to generate uncertainty, as the apex court has not expressly clarified which line of authority represents the applicable law. Although several scholars have examined the issue, insufficient attention has been given to the role of legal language in creating and perpetuating the confusion. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has not expressly overruled one of the conflicting streams of authorities. This paper, adopting a doctrinal research methodology, examines the controversy and argues that the uncertainty could have been avoided through the proper application of legal language and established principles of evidence law. The paper finds that a careful use of legal terminology, together with the appropriate application of the principles and rules governing customary dispute settlement, provides a basis for determining when a customary settlement constitutes customary arbitration and thereby becomes binding. It further applies established principles for resolving conflicts between decisions of the Supreme Court and contends that the apex court has, in effect, settled in favour of one of the competing judicial streams. The paper recommends statutory reform of the law governing customary arbitration to further clarify the circumstances under which customary settlements acquire binding legal effect.