Abstract
This essay traces the legal history of arbitration in Nigeria through the succession of statutes that have governed it, arguing that Nigeria’s arbitral tradition is best understood as a gradual convergence between indigenous dispute-resolution practice and evolving international commercial arbitration standards.
It begins with customary arbitration in pre-colonial Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa-Fulani and Edo communities, tracing its judicial recognition from the Court of Appeal’s erroneous denial of its existence in Okpuruwu v Okpokan through the Supreme Court’s authoritative affirmation in Agu v Ikewibe and Ohiaeri v Akabeze.
It then examines the Arbitration Ordinance 1914, a colonial transplant modelled on the English Arbitration Act 1889, and its re-enactment as the Arbitration Ordinance 1958, which fragmented into four parallel regional laws following Nigeria’s federal constitutional reforms of 1954-1963.
The essay also considers the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1988, which unified this fragmented landscape and made Nigeria the first African state to domesticate the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985, while noting its eventual shortcomings such as the absence of emergency arbitration, third-party funding provisions, and mandatory stay of proceedings.
Finally, it concludes with the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, which repealed the ACA and introduced reforms addressing these gaps. The essay contends that each legislative stage responded directly to the practical inadequacies of its predecessor, culminating in a modern framework that nonetheless remains rooted in Nigeria’s indigenous arbitral heritage.
Introduction
Arbitration is defined as a process by which parties to a dispute refer it to one or more arbitrators, by whose decision (the award) they agree to be bound.[1] Arbitration in Nigeria is often regarded as a product of colonial legislation, yet its origins extend much further into the indigenous dispute-resolution practices of pre-colonial Nigerian societies.
The development of arbitration law in Nigeria is therefore better understood not as the adoption of an entirely foreign institution, but as the gradual evolution of indigenous arbitral practices through successive legislative reforms influenced by both domestic realities and international commercial standards.
This essay examines that evolution and argues that the contemporary framework for arbitration in Nigeria represents the culmination of a progressive legal development that has preserved its indigenous foundations while embracing internationally accepted arbitration principles.
Customary Arbitration: The Pre-Colonial Foundation of Arbitration
Long before British colonial administration, disputes across the Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa-Fulani and Edo communities were routinely referred to chiefs, elders and religious leaders for binding resolution under customary law[2]. This practice functioned much like modern arbitration, though it was far less formal and centred on reconciling parties rather than simply ruling on their dispute.
However, its legal status was thrown into doubt by the Court of Appeal in Okpuruwu v Okpokan, which controversially denied the existence of any concept of native arbitration in Nigerian law[3].
The Supreme Court decisively reversed this erroneous position in Agu v Ikewibe, holding, per Karibi-Whyte JSC, that referral of a dispute to a family head or community elder for a binding, custom-based resolution was a well-established African mode of dispute settlement, and laying down four conditions for validity: voluntary submission, willingness to be bound, exercise of a judicial function according to custom, and a final and unconditional decision[4].
The Court extended this reasoning in Ohiaeri v Akabeze, adding that neither party may withdraw before an award is made[5]. The practical significance of Agu v Ikewibe extends beyond its immediate facts, since the four conditions it laid down continue to function as the operative test whenever a party seeks to plead customary arbitration as a bar to fresh litigation.[6]
Scholars have also observed that this doctrine effectively grants customary arbitration an evidentiary status comparable to a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam, provided the strict conditions are satisfied.[7] This judicial accommodation is significant precisely because it did not require any statutory intervention; the Supreme Court achieved it purely through common law reasoning, reading customary practice into the existing framework of res judicata.
Customary arbitration never really disappeared under colonial and statutory law; it kept running alongside them, with the courts’ blessing. In fact, that survival is what makes the later statutes feel distinctly Nigerian rather than borrowed wholesale.
The Arbitration Ordinance 1914
Nigeria’s first arbitration statute, the Arbitration Ordinance No 16 of 1914, coincided with Lord Lugard’s amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates[8]. It was modelled directly on the English Arbitration Act 1889 as it was a colonial transplant designed for the growing community of British merchants and administrators, providing for judicial enforcement of arbitration agreements, appointment of arbitrators, and recognition of awards[9]. It was received without adaptation to local commercial realities, and enacted before Nigeria’s mineral-driven economy had even emerged. Therefore, its limitations showed up quickly as commerce grew more complex.
The 1958 Ordinance and Regional Fragmentation
The 1914 Ordinance was re-enacted as the Arbitration Act, Cap 13, Laws of the Federation and Lagos 1958, applying to the Northern, Western and Eastern Regions, Lagos, and the Southern Cameroons, but confined to domestic arbitration[10]. The federal constitutions of 1954, 1960 and 1963 devolved legislative competence to the regions, each of which adopted its own version of the 1958 Ordinance.
By 1963 Nigeria had four parallel arbitration laws: for Lagos, the former Eastern, Northern and Western Regions[11], producing considerable as uncertainty for parties transacting across regional boundaries and setting the stage for federal reform.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1988
The most consequential pre-2023 reform was the Arbitration and Conciliation Decree No. 11 of 1988, promulgated under General Ibrahim Babangida and later re-designated as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA), Cap A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004[12].
Nigeria thereby became the first African state to domesticate the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, unifying the fragmented regional regime under a single federal statute divided into four parts covering arbitration, conciliation, international commercial arbitration and conciliation, and miscellaneous matters, with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the New York Convention 1958 annexed as schedules[13].
Despite this achievement, the ACA attracted sustained criticism over its thirty-five years. The ACA had real gaps. There was no provision for emergency arbitrators, no framework for third-party funding, and the stay of court proceedings was discretionary rather than mandatory. It also offered no consolidation or joinder mechanism, said nothing about electronic arbitration agreements, and provided no internal award-review process.[14].
To fix these shortcomings, a National Committee on the Reform and Harmonisation of Arbitration and ADR Laws recommended reform as early as 2005, and although the House of Representatives passed a repeal bill in 2020, presidential assent was not granted until 26 May 2023.
The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023
The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (AMA) repealed the ACA and is built largely on the revised 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law, bringing Nigerian law up to date after nearly four decades [15]. Its innovations directly answer the ACA’s shortcomings.
Section 5 makes the stay of proceedings mandatory, not discretionary, where a party litigates in breach of an arbitration agreement.[16] Section 16 introduces emergency arbitration for urgent relief before a tribunal is even constituted,[17] and section 61 abolishes maintenance and champerty as they apply to third-party funding.[18] Sections 56-59 go further, creating an Award Review Tribunal, a genuinely new domestic mechanism for limited internal review of an award before anyone goes near the courts, though how it will work in practice is still untested.[19]
Sections 39-40, more modestly, introduce consolidation and joinder of related proceedings.[20] However, as the Act is only three years old, its true efficacy will ultimately depend on how Nigerian courts interpret and apply these provisions.
The Award Review Tribunal has attracted comments from international commentators, who regard it as an unusual concept in comparative arbitration practice, with its closest analogue found not in the Model Law but in the ad hoc annulment committee under the ICSID Convention and the potential for introducing an extra layer of cost and procedural delay that could negate the expeditious nature of arbitration.[21] Like the ICSID committee, the ART reviews an award on limited grounds and may set it aside in whole or in part, after which the ordinary courts retain only a residual power to reinstate the award if they consider the ART’s decision unsupportable.[22]
Conclusion
Nigeria’s arbitration history is essentially a story of two traditions coming together—one indigenous, the other international—gradually merging. It begins with community elders settling disputes under customary law, then progresses through a colonial ordinance adopted wholesale from England, reflects regional fragmentation, and moves on to the ACA 1988 and, most recently, the AMA 2023.
Each law exists because its predecessor failed in some specific way. The AMA 2023 currently stands at the pinnacle of this evolution, having addressed the procedural weaknesses of the ACA and created entirely new institutions like the Award Review Tribunal. However, customary arbitration persists, indicating that whatever form Nigerian arbitration law takes in the future, its roots remain firmly indigenous.
REFRENCES
[1] Nigel Blackaby and others, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2015) para 1.04
[2]S A Fagbemi, ‘Scope and Relevance of Customary Arbitration as Mechanism for Settlement of Dispute in the 21st Century’ (2019) 10(1) Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of Int.ernational Law and Jurisprudence 32, 33.
[3]Okpuruwu v Okpokan (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt 90) 554.
[4]Agu v Ikewibe (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt 180) 385.
[5]Ohiaeri v Akabeze (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt 221) 1.
[6] Agu v Ikewibe (n4)
[7] Gaius Ezejiofor, The Law of Arbitration in Nigeria (Longman 1997) ch 2.
[8]Arbitration Ordinance No. 16 of 1914.
[9]Uzoma Azikiwe, Festus Onyia and Michael Ugah, ‘Nigeria’ in The Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review (Global Arbitration Review 2024).
[10]Arbitration Act, Cap 13, L.aws of the Federation and Lagos 1958.
[11]International Bar Association, ‘Is the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Act Suitable to Construction Disputes? A Critical Analysis’ (IBA)
[12]Arbitration and Conciliation Decree No. 11 of 14 March 1988 (now Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, repealed).
[13]Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, First and Second Schedules.
[14]Chimezie Onuzulike, Ayomide Abiodun and Owen Umeh, ‘The Arbitration and Mediation Act of 2023: Notable Innovations’ (2023) <https://www.gelias.com/images/Newsletter/Review_of_the_Arbitration_and_Mediation_Act_2023_Article.pdf> accessed 10 July 2026.
[15]Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (Act No 19).
[16] AMA, s 5
[17] ibid, s 16
[18] ibid, s 61
[19] ibid, s 56
[20]ibid, ss 39-40; Chimezie Onuzulike, Ayomide Abiodun, and Owen Umeh (n14)
[21] International Bar Association, ‘The Nigerian Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023: A Comparison with the Arbitration Conciliation Act 2004 and Global Practices’ (IBA) <https://www.ibanet.org/the-nigerian-arbitration-and-mediation-act-2023> accessed 10 July 2026
[22] Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, s 56(8)-(9).
Author
Amos Stephen Bwala writes from the Faculty of Law, ABU Zaria (500L). He can be reached at 07066334459 or [email protected]