Commercial and Investment Arbitration in Nigeria's Oil and Gas Sector

in The Journal of World Investment & Trade
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


Commercial and Investment Arbitration in Nigeria's Oil and Gas Sector

in The Journal of World Investment & Trade


This antipathy stems in the main from a suspicion ofpartiality against them and their nations in international arbitrations by some arbitrators. It is generally accepted that a bias existed at least in the past. Mr Jan Paulson has said of this: "it may be truc that in the beginning of this Century, and until the 1950s, arbitrations conducted by various international tribunals or commissions evidenced bias against developing countrics": Third World Participation iii International Investment Arbitration, 2 ICSH3 Rev. 1, 1987, at 19. Some othcr cqually important conuncntators rnaintain that the bias still exists. See, for instance, M. Sornarajah, Pmoer al1d justire ill Foreigil Investment Arbitratioii, 14 J. Int. Arb. 3, September 1997, at p. 103, who in fact cites the above opinion ofMr Paulson at p. 103, footnote 2.

2 One trend is to regard "commercial arbitration" as incltisive of investment arbitration, thereby making any distinction between them redundant and idle. For instance, the accompanying note to the United Nations Commission. on International Trade Law's (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Commcrcial Arbitration urges nations that, in adopting the Law, "commercial" should "be given a wide interpretation so as to cover matters arising from all relationships of a conunercial nature ... (such as) exploitation agreement or concession; joint venture and other forms of industrial or busincss co-operation ..." to which nations adopting the Law would seem to have generally paid heed. In the current article, comnercial arbitration is, for convenience, generally regarded as any other arbitration in the sector under discussion outside investment arbitration, but the two phrases may also be used interchangeably in some parts of the article. 3 On this, see Andrew I. Okekeifere, Commercial Arbitration As The Most Effektive Dispute Resolution Method: Still A Fact or Now A Myth? 15 J. Int. Arb. 4, December 1998. ^ Whether or not this antipathy has declined remains arguable: Paulson, .supra, footnote 1, notes a decline; M. Somarajah, The Uncitral Model Law: A Third World Viewpoint, 6 Int. Arb. 4, Dcccmbcr 1989, p. 7, at p. 9 notes no decline. lt would indeed seem clcarly to have been on a serious and fast decline since thc bcginning of the last decade. Whether or not it may be reinstated, especially with respect to arbitrations conducted by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), is becoming an important question. See, for instance, Nagla Nassar, luternatioealisation 9State Contracts: ICSID, the Last Citadel, 14 J. Int. Arb. 3, September 1997, p. 185, at p. 207. A part of this article also sounds a similar caution. 5 The country gaincd independence from Great Britain in October 1960. erz Cap. 19, Laws of thc Fcdcration of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition.

For these matters, see Andrew I. Okekeifere, International Commercial Arbitration and the Ll>V' Model La", wider Written Federal Constitutions: Necessity versus Constitutionality in the Nigerian Legal Framework, 1G J. Int. Arb.2.Junel999. 1 Nigeria is an entity of about 250 nations. They were welded into a political unit in 1914 for administrative convenience. cm See such cases as Assamyonq r. Armuaku E' Others, (1932) 1 WACA (West African Court of Appeal Reports) 192; Mbagbu v. Ayochukwu, (1973) 3 Ecslr 90; Abel Nkado & Two Others v. Oznlike Obi<1lliJ & Another (1993) 4 NWLR (pt. 287) 305; Uzor Idika & Eleven Others v. Nduka Erisi & 3 Others, (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 178) 563. �° F. Kellor, American Arbitration: Its History F.mctiolls and Achiel'emcl1ts, Harper, New York, 1948; 1 Call1bridge Law Journal 28. For a fuller examination ofarbitration under thc custornary law, sec Okekeifere, 5111'''', footnote 7, and idem, The Recent Odyssey )f Custmllary Laiv Arbitration aiid Conciliation ill Nigeria's Apex Courts, 4 Abia State University Law Journal, Abia State, Nigeria, 1998.

11 Except foreigiicrs who conscnt or who by extensive involveinent in custornary practices, such as thc taking of traditional chicftaincy titles, have made thcmselves automatic subjects of custornary law. 12 For morc on this, see Andrew 1. Chukwuemeric, Salieru Issue in the Laws and Practice �)farbitratioii iti Nigeria, paper presented at the colloquium "Arbitration and the African States", organized at the Senate House, University of London, 4-5 June 2003, by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and King's College, London. 13 It adapts very quickly to appreciate and solve contemporary problems. "One of the most striking features of West African native law and custom is its flexibility; it appears to have been always subject to motives of expediency, and it shows unquestionable adaptability to altered circumstances without entirely losing its character." Osborne, CJ, in Lewis v. Bankole, (1908), 1 NLR 81, at 100-101.

14 See, for instance, High Court Law 1955 ofEastern Nigeria, sections 14 and 20, now applicable in the castern states; and High Court Law 1955 of Northern Nigeria, sections 28 and 28a, now applicable in the northern states. 15 See, for cxample, Ninianteks Associates v. Marco C""strurtiol1 Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 NWLR (pt. 174) 411, CA. �r� See Ijebu-Ode LC v. Adedeji βaloyun & Co. Ltd., (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 166) 136, SC; Sanda v. Kakawa LG, (1991) 2 NWLR (pt. 174) 379, SC. 17 Following English law on thc point; see Brirish Motor Trade Association v. Snlvador, (1949) 1 All ER 208. '" See, for example, Royal Exchange Assurarice v. Bentworth Fillallce (Nigerian) Ltd., (1976) N(-,Li�. 72. 19 See, for example., Ransorne-Kuri v. Attomey-Gellerat ofthe Federation, (1985) 2 NwuZ (pt. 6) 211, SC. =° See, for instance, Trertdtex Trading Corp. Ltd. CfMfmt Bank of'Nigeria (Trrrtdtex), (1977) All ER 88. 21 See AIJied C. luepfer hic. v. Edokpolor, (1965) Nclr 89. Even under section ofCap. 19 ofthe Laws ofthe Federation of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition, which is patterned after the UNCITRAL Model Law definition of an "agreement,", an oral agreement can still pass as valid. See Chukwuemeric, supra, footnote 12. 22 Nigerian law also follows the English law on this point; see, for instance, Arab Afriran EI1e��y Corp. Ltd. v. Olieprodnkten Ncderland BV, (1983) 2 Lloyds's Rep. 219; Hobbs Padgett & Cn. (Reinsurance) Ltd. 1'.JC Kirkland Ltd., (1969) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 547. 23 See, for cxample, Murmansk State Ste<1ltlShip Line v. Kano Oil Millers Ltd. (Murnrartsk State Steamship Line), (1974) Nscc (vol. 9) 590. Dental offair hearing completely voids the proceedings and award: J. E/I(�u!(, & Others v. Akaiqtve & Others (EI1igll'e v. Akaiyu�e), (1992) 2 Nwui (pt. 225) 505. 24 Countries that by reason of colonial association adoptcd the English comrnon law. 25 It is generally so in Nigerian law. Such a decision cannot stand: seej. NlI'al1gll'lI v. Nzeku·u Co Allor, (1957) 2 Fsc 36.

20 See, for exairiple, Leylanä Nigeria Ltd. v. Dizzengoff WA (Ni,eeria) Ltd., (1990) 2 Nwi�i2� (pt. 134) 610, 623; Gottschalk v. Elder Deppipster Fy Co. Ltd., (1917) 3 NIR 16. 27 See Mumransk State Stearnship Lilie, supra, footnote 23. 28 The federating units (regions and later states) each had an Arbitration Law, a carbon copy of the Act. For more on this, see Okekeifere, supra, footnote 7. 21 Cap. 189, Laws of thc Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (revised edition). Formerly lcsil) (enforcement of Awards) Decree No. 49 of 1967.

;° For more on this, including the difficulties involved, see Andrew I. Okekeifere, 77re Enforcement and Challenye al Forc(�1I Arbitral Awards il1 Nigeria, 14 J. lnt. Arb. 3, September 1997, p. 223. See also infra, footnote 74 and accompanying text. 3� Cap. 350, scctioii 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition; formerly the Petroleum Decree No. 51 of 1969. The provision was section 10 in thc Decree. 12 See, for instancc, City Engineering Ltd. v. Nigerian Airports Authority, (2001) FWLR (pt. 34) 499, SC.

33 On these matters, scc Chukwuc�nerie, snpra, footnote 12. ;� (1991) 30 lLm 577.

35 Othcrs include AMT v. Zaire, (1997) 12 4 Mealy's International Arbitration Reporter Al. On thc controversy, sec, for instance, Sornarajah, snyra, footnotc 1, pp. 126-129 and 130-135. •Vl A. Broches, Bilateral Investment Treaties al1d Arbitration aj'bweslmfl11 Disputes, in J. Schulz and A. Jan Van Den Berg (eds.), The Art of Arbitration: Liber Alllieomlll Pieter Sal1dcrs, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, p. 63. 3� Snprn, footnote 1, pp. 130-131. 1. 3M "British Treaties for the 1'promotion and Protection of Investment", in F.A. Mann, Flirthcr 5t/1dies in International Law, 1990.

39 Made by the Organisation for African Unity in June 1981. OAU Doc. CAtt/LEC167/4/Rtv 5, reprinted in (1982) 21 ILM 58. 411 See Andrew I. Chukwucmerie, Commercial Arbitration and Third Party Interests — Views for the Future, Abia State Univcrsity Law Journal, Uturu, Nigeria, fbrthcoming.

41 See ibid., notes 129-1311. In fact, in Nigeria, for instance, the ability of a third party to enforce a contract to which hc is not a signatory can in somc circumstances now be taken as established; see, for examplc, Ali M. Shuwa v. Chad Basin Development Authority, (1991) 7 NWLR (pt. 205) 550, at 562; Chief Patrirk AI1llsomwa" I'. Mercarrtile Bank of Nigeria Ltd., (1987) 3 Nwmt (pt. 60) 196; Uniorr Bank of Nigeria Ltd. Fy Artnr v. Penny-mart Ltd., (1992) 5 NWLR (pt. 240) 228. 42 Decree No. 16 of 1995. ^3 Ibid., Scction 26(3). 44 The required consent is on the same principle with thc requirement in the other rules for a written agreement manifesting clear and dehnite intent to submit the dispute to arbitration under the particular institution. See, for instance, Article 7(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Article 1 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. '� UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 7(2). 4e See supra, footnote 26.

°� See, for example, Gcorges R. Delaume, ICSID Arbitration and tlte Courts, A.J.I.L., 1983, p. 784; O. Chukwumerije, International Iaii, <1l1d Article 42 ofthe ICSID Convention, 14 J. Int. Arb. 3, September 1997, p. 79, at p. 93, note 47 and the authorities citcd therein; l3roches, supra, footnote 36; G. Wegen, Dispute Settlement alliI Arbitration, in S.J. Rutin and R.W. Nelson, (eds.), International Investment Dispute: Avoidance and Settlement, American Society of Int. Law Publication, Washington, D.C:., 1985. '" Sornarajah, supra, footnote 1, at p.137, note 27; (Canadian treaties with the Philippines and Trinidad and Tobago. 49 Sornarajah, ibid., note 126; Canada—Argcntina Treaty 1991.

511 (1993) 32 IM 937. Such as where the treaty provision only requires that the dispute "shall, upon agreement by both partics, bc submitted for arbitration by the Centre" or a "sympathctic consideration (should be given) to a requcst to conciliation or arbitration by the Centre" or the host State "to asscnt to any demand on the part of the national to submit for conciliation or arbitration". This classification was made by Brochcs, sitpra, footnote 36; and also cited in Sornarajah, supra, footnote 1 , at pp. 130-131, note 97 (see also his other references at notes 98-101).

'= See, generally, IlItlest/tlt'I11 1'rnsyects in the I'etroleum Sector of Nigeria, a paper prescnted by thc then Petroleum Minister, Chief Dan Etete, at the 2nd Nigeria Economic Sunniit, 3-5 May 1995 in Abuja.

'' See, generally, George Kirkland (Managing Director of Chevron Nigeria Ltd.), Reinventing Pnrtnerships for the New Millennium, The Guardian (Nigeria), Wednesday, 27 May 1998. Cap. 432, Laws of thc Fedcration of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition; formerly the Trade Disputes Decree No. 7 of 1976.

55 See, for instance, for each argument, Thc Qatar Arbitration, (1953) 20 ILR 534, and The Abu Dhabi Arbilral;oll, (1958) 27 Il 117; A. Verdross, Quasi-il1lemaliollal Agreements and International Commercial Transactions, (1964) YUWA, p. 230; and Texaco Oversras Petroleurn Co./Cali[ Asiatic Oil Co. v. the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, 53 lr.n 389 (1979), and (1978) 17 ILM 3. 56 Islamic law, for instance; on this, see Waled El Malik, Mineral Investment <1lld the Sharia Laws, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1993; indem, State Ownership qf Miiierals under Islamir Law, Journal of Energy and National Resources Law, 1996; both also cited by Sornarajah, supra, footnote 1, at p. 108, note 22.

'� See also cases such as Taylor Wondrow of Nigeria Ltd. v. S.E. GmbH (Taylor Woodrow), (1993) 4 NLR (pt. 286) 127; Entywe v. Akaigwe, supra, footnote 23. 51 See supra, footnote 23. 5'' In Beltz v. Parrkom, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1503 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1995), A lost an award before a panel of three arbitrators, one of which was C. A discovered that C, a lawycr, had becn a partner in a firm that represented not B, the other party, but intcrcsts affiliated with B. lt was found as fact that C had never met 13, never worked on any of B's matters and did not know that B had becn a client ofthat firm which, at any rate, hc had left and from which he was not in a position to ask for a conflicts check. The court of first instance held that he had failed in a duty of disclosure: that he should have discovered those facts and disclosed them, and it vacated the award. The decision was, happily, reversed on appeal. See, generally, James H. Carter, Rights and Obl(�aliollS ofthe Arbitrator, 63 J.C.I. Arb. 3, 1997, p. 170, at p. 172. �' See, generally, Andrew I. Okekeifere, 7he Parties' Rights Ayainst A Dilatory or Unskilled Arhilralor-Nell' Possible Approaches, 15 Int. Arb. 2, June 1998, p. 129. 61 Ibid., pp. 140-143.

f'2 Cap. 19, section 4, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition. 61 Compare, for example, Section 9(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 ofGrcat Britain; and Article 1032(1) ofthe German Arbitration Act 1998. 64 On these issues generally, see Andrew I. Okekcifcre, Stay-of-Court l-roceedings Pending Arbitration in Nigerian Law, 13 J. Int. Arb. 3, September 1996. fi' Great Britain, for instance, by the combined effect of Sections 32, 44 and 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

66 These can only be arbitrated under the Tradc Disputes Act, supra, footnote 54. 6' By virtue of the Copyrights Act, Cap. 68, Laws of the Fedcration of Nigeria, 1990, revised edition. On whcther or not non-arbitrability is wisc for any country and for other related matters, sec Andrew I. Okekeifere, Public Policy and Arbitrability under the UNClTRAL Model Law, 2 Int. A.L.R., 1999. r·" Section 43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, for instance. Such occurrence is very unlikely anyway. See the discussion suyra, at footnotes 30 and following. 6') More on this latcr in Section V on applicable law. 711 See the discussion irfra, Section v.

71 Including countries that are not even Mcmbers of the New York Convention and, amongst Members, cvcn countries in which the reciprocity reservation which Nigeria made would deny recognition to awards made there. 72 (1965) 1 All Nut 297. 73 A party can, however, appeal against a dccision in an enforcement or challenge of an award; see Taylor Woo�lrow, sitpra, footnote 57. 74 For a fuller discussion of thcsc matters, see Okckeifere, supra, footnote 30.

�s That parties are granted such wide latitude is an eloquent indication of the enormous importance the country attaches to party autonom. Parties are at liberty, subject only to such forbidden things as illegality, to chose what is best for them, they being the bestjudges of their own interests. The draftsmen committee an oversight in sub-section 2(d). The sense is not that "any dispute arising ... shall be treated as an international arbitration" but that an arbitration in settlement of "any dispute arising ... shall be treated as an international arbitration". �r� Any Company operating in Nigeria is required to be registered in Nigeria as a Nigerian company. Now that the Enterprises Promotion Decrees no longer apply, such a registration can amounts to mere paperwork, as foreigners can own 100 percent of the shares. If that is the case, it may hardly be fair, all things considered, to insist that its nationality is Nigerian tot the purpose of determining whcther or not it is entitled to a foreigner's privilcgcs.

�� Bairamian FJ, in Omonyin v. Omotosho, (1961) 1 All NLR 304, 309. �N Karibi-Whytc JSC, in Raphael Agu v. Christiaii Ikewibe, (1991) 3 NWLR (pt. 180) 385, 409.

79 Okekeifere, siipra, footnote 7, in the sction on "Cap. 19, The State Laws and the Old Arbitration Act". "" Two proceedings involving very interesting legal issues. The author represented the Claimant in cach proceeding. The cases have not been reported, but the relevant documents are on file with the author.

81 See, for cxample, Obaferni Awolmuo Ul1ipersity v. Dr. Onabarjo, (1991) 5 Nwtn (pt. 193) 549, 561, 566; Simeon Wejin v. Ashaka Cemeru Co. Ltd., (1991) 8 NWLR (pt. 211) 608, 615. 82 See Murrnansk State Steaiiisliip Line, supra, footnote 23. X3 If States find that international law will be applied irrespective of the correctiiess or otherwise of such application or of thcir genuine feehngs, they may deny such awards recognition and enforcement undcr Articles v(1)(d) and v(2)(a) of the ICSID Convention, since enforcing an imposition may well be against public policy in theirjurisdictions. lt is in Nigeria. X4 27 ILR 117, 165.

8S (1984 11) 6 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 75. 86 (1987 11) 15 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 1989. 17 For a fuller discussion of Iran-U.S.C.T.R. cases on this point, see Nassar, sitpra, footnote 4, pp. 187-192. "" 20 ILM 1 (1981). "'' BP Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd. v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, 53 Ilr 297, 1979; Lexaco Overseas Petroleum Co./California Asiatic Oil Co. v. Thf Government of the Libyan Arah Repiiblic, 53 ILR 389, 1979. ''" Many ofwhich involve legal and economic investment questions equally as important as those in thc 1(:sll) arbitrations, or cvcn more so. See footnotes 85-89, supra.

'" Gerald Segal, Tlve World Affairs, Companion, 3rd edition, Simon & Schuster Ltd., London, 1991, p. xxiii. 1)2 Otto Schachtcr, The Invisible College of International Lawyers, 72 N.W.U.L.R. 217, 220, 221, 1977; quoted by Rudolf Dolzcr, New FOImdatiJ>l1s of the Law rf Expropriation of Alicrt Property, 75 A.J.LL. 553, 1981, at pp. 554-555, notc 6.

'13 Nassar, supra, footnote 4, pp. 199-202, analyses the only two cascs that could havc expressly pronounccd on thc point: Lt°i'ca> v. Liberia. (1987) 29 ILM 648; and Sl'i' v. Exypt, (1993) 32 11M 937; and finds that tliey are morc in agreement with the propriety ofan irnplied choice. 14 World Bank, Convention on thu Settlement of II1Pfstmfl1t Disputes Between States and Nationals of other States, Documents Concerning the Origin and Fonnation of the Convention, Washington, D.C., The World Bank Group, 1968, p. 569. 95 Printing and Numerical Regisleril1g Ca. v. Sampsori, (1875) LR 19 Eq. 462, 465. Even so arbitrators. Gilbert v. Bumstille, 255 NY 348, 174 NE 706 (1931), at pp. 354-355. For "Court" read "IcsiD tribunal". The decisions referred to, ofwhich individuals ought not to run foul, are well-founded judgments, in this case, not just rcasonings and pronOnIlCCIllCnts in prcvious awards arrived at on thc same shaky principlcs and gcncralizations as havc formally bccn donc in this area.

'" (t984)23!LM35). 91 Ibid., at p. 402. » At p. 29 of the original Award as rendered. 11111 (1987) 29 ILM 648. 101 Nassar, supra, footnote 4, p. 202.

1112 World Bank, supra, footnote 94, Vol. 1I, pt. 2, p. 985. 103 (1993) 32 ILM 937. 104 Thc chances arc far slimmer in the light of the current practice of States to copy and update arbitration and investments laws, cspccially amongst the poor countries desirous of attracting more forcign invcstnxcnt.

"'S See Chukwumerije, supra, footnote 47, at pp. 80-82. 1116 World Bank, cupra, footnote 94, p. 985. 1117 Ceylon, for instance; see ibid., pp. 800-804. 1118 Ibid., p. 800. "''' On thc ground that as a quasi-international tribunal an ICSID tribunal should be ablc to apply international law in appropriate cases; see ibid., p. 801. 11(1 Ibid., Vol. l, pp. 192-194. 111 Ibid., p. 571. 1. "2 Ibid., Vol. n, pt. 2, p. 985. 111 It is a contract between States which, subject to considerations for world peace, etc., are free to contract as may be fit for their national interests.

114 They have been shown to be a subsequent change of opinion; sec Chukwumerije, supra, footnotc 47, pp.90-92. 115 QHt'rrt': if there is no ascertainable international law rule on the point, what happens? 116 (1989 m) 23 Iran-U.S.C.T.R 351.

rr� Though the Model Law was created in 1985, such an eminent commercial centre as German only adopted it in its 1988 Arbitration Act, whilc Great Britain adopted it only partly in its 1996 Arbitration Act. 1 Tliere is an unrelenting doubt whether or not international law of contract does exist: see M Sornarajah, 71re Mytlr of International CJ//tract La"" 15 J.W.T.L. 187, May/June 1981; Nassar, supra, footnote 4, p. 195; D.W. Bowett, State Contracts with Aliens: Cnnternporary Develoymeats on COlllpellS<1ti'J//for Tenllillalioll or Brl'<1clz. 64 B.Y.I.L. 49, at 50, 1988; and A.F.M. Maniruzzaman, Coiiflict (iflaii, I. International Arlntratioti: Praclice and Trends, 9 Arb. Int'l 371, 1993; both ofthe latter cited by Nassar, supra, footnotc 4; Sornarajah, srgtrn, footnote 1, pp. 119-124. 110 For instance, the Libyan awards, except with respect to applicable (Libyan) law.

1211 D.P. O'Com�ell, 'The Rote of International Law, in S. Hoffman (cd.), Conditions of World Order, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1966, p. 49, at p. 54; also cited in Dolzer, suyra, footnote 92, at p. 555. 121 H. Mosler, T6e International Society As a Le,qal Community, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Haguc, 1980, p. 111; also cited by Dolzer, ibid., at p. 561, note 35. 122 Beda Wortmann, Choice ofLaw By Arbitrators: 17". Applicable Confürt ofLaws Systems, 14 Arb. Int'l 97, at 102, 1998. 121 For instance, per David A. Soley, "The Convention is a powerfitl tool in depoliticising investment disputes": IcsiD I/IIple/ll('//t<1tioll: An Effcctipe Alternative to International Cmtfiict, 19 International Lawyer 28, p. 521, 1985.

�=; For instance, it is not easy to see any difference with respect to applicable law between the reasonings in ÄPP, Slipm, footnote 103, and such discredited awards (mostly suspected to be rather political than legal pronouncernents) as Toyco/Caliastic v. Libya, (1978) 17 ILM 1, or Sapphire International Petroleum Ltd. v. National Iranian Oil Co., 35 Ilk 136. m It is reported that this is already the case with respect to some Asian States; see Sornarajah, supra, footnote 1, pp. 10(r107.

121 Decree No. 56 of 1979. Now of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, revised cdition. 127 Robert B. von Mehren and P. Nicholas Kourides, International Arbitrations Betwem States and Foreign Private Persons: The Libyatr Nationalisation Cases, 75 A.J.I.L. 476, at 549, 1981. 12" Icsil) Case No. Ai�B/78/1. 129 See, for instance, Ipitrade v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 465 F. Supp 824 (01)<: 1978); and Trendtex, supra, footnote 20.

130 This case is named in this article along with a few others because the partics do not mind. See supra, footnote 80 and accompanying text. 131 There is a similar upsurge of interest in arbitration in all sectors of thc economy. This writer has becn or is involved in other arbitrations in different aspects of the economy,.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 7 7 4
Full Text Views 3 3 3
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0