dispute resolution

, ,

ADVANCING ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN NIGERIA: CURRENT OPPORTUNITIES, LEGAL CHALLENGES AND THE WAYS FORWARD

, ,

Jimoh, Mujib Akann

INTRODUCTION

“In my view, the simplest answer to this issue is, ‘It’s 2020’. We no longer record evidence using quill and ink. In fact, we apparently do not even teach children to use cursive writing in all schools anymore. We now have the technological ability to communicate remotely effectively. Using it is more efficient and far less costly than personal attendance. We should not be going back. That is not to say that there are not legitimate issues that deserve consideration. Technology is a tool, not an answer.” Arconti et. al. v. Smith et. al.2

The outbreak of COVID-19 has impacted the Nigerian legal system with the introduction of virtual court hearing. Currently, there is no legislation on virtual court hearings in Nigeria. The foregoing notwithstanding, this article examines the constitutionality of this type of hearing and its practicability under the extant laws. Virtual court had been discouraged because of the concern that it may not pass the test of public trial, which is constitutionally guaranteed. This article analyses the provisions of the Constitution as well as available case laws, which suggest that if certain requirements are met, virtual courts may pass the constitutional test of publicity of trial. It is also submitted that the virtual court will not offend the law on territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless there are some legitimate concern about the issue of evidence, especially examination of witnesses, which may not be best suited for virtual court. Among these are technological inadequacy necessary for virtual court hearings in Nigeria leading to recommendations arising from practices in other jurisdictions

Keywords: Online Dispute Resolution, Virtual court, Public trial, Evidence, Technology

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v11i2.6

LLB (First Class); BL (Hons); Associate, Banwo & Ighodalo, Lagos, Nigeria. mjimoh@banwo-ighodalo.com; mujibjimoh@yahoo.com.

, ,

CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION IN NIGERIA: A REVIEW OF EXTANT JUDICIAL PARAMETERS AND THE NEED FOR PARADIGM SHIFT

, ,

Muhammed Mustapha Akanbi*, Lukman Adebisi Abdulrauf**, and Abdulrazaq Adelodun Daibu***

ABSTRACT

Two forms of arbitration exist in present-day Nigeria; the first is indigenous to the various communities in the country and it is determined by the customs and traditions of the individual community. The second, which was imported, derives its source from the general laws and practice of England. The latter, which is arguably, alien to the culture and tradition of traditional Nigerian communities, has often been superimposed and applied by courts. The continuing subjugation of customary arbitration can be seen in the attitude of the Nigerian courts, whereby reliance is placed on the parameters of modern arbitration in the determination of a valid customary arbitration award in Nigeria. This article contends that the attitudes of courts in the determination of the binding nature of an award given under customary arbitration, using the parameters of modern arbitration, has caused considerable damage to the essence and potency of customary arbitration practice in Nigeria. In order to be authentic, it is contended that judicial development of customary arbitration, must respond to the traditions, attitudes and goals of the people whose society is under consideration. It should not be subject to a validity test by reference to orthodox arbitration or arbitration under the received English law. Consequently, the article examines the extant parameters to which the Nigerian courts subject the characteristics of customary arbitration in Nigeria. The article discusses the need for a paradigm shift in order for customary arbitration to respond to the exigencies of customs.

Keywords: Arbitration, custom, tradition, dispute resolution, English law, Nigeria.


* LL.B (Ife), LL.M (Lagos), Ph.D. (KCL, London), BL; Professor of Law, Department of Business Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin. Nigeria e-mail: laroungbe@yahoo.co.uk

** LL.B (Zaria), LL.M, (Ilorin) BL; Lecturer, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin, Ilorin. Nigeria e-mail: lukmanrauf@gmail.com

*** LL.B, LL.M, (Ilorin) BL; Lecturer, Department of Private and Property Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria: E-mail: abdulrazaqdaibu@yahoo.com

, ,

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND THE WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM: A LEGAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW

, ,

Linimose Nzeriuno Anyiwe * and Eghosa Osa Ekhator**

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to review and analyse the WTO procedures and rules designed to resolve developing countries disputes. The Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) of the World Trade Organization is generally considered as providing innovative set of rules through which countries could address and resolve trade disputes amongst themselves. The DSU also establishes an Advisory Centre, which seeks to assist developing countries to resolve trade disputes. Despite these innovations, opinions are divided on the practical effectiveness of the DSU and the Advisory Centre, particularly with respect to resolving disputes involving developing countries. In this paper, we shall examine the practical effectiveness of DSU and the roles of the Advisory Centre in the dispute resolution processes involving developing countries. Drawing examples from previous disputes, some practical challenges and constraints with the current procedures faced by developing countries are identified and discussed; they are: lack of expertise, inability to enforce WTO rulings, reluctance to institute trade disputes and economic pressure applied by developed countries on developing countries in trade disputes amongst others. Addressing these challenges are critical to the overall success of the DSU. This paper calls for a review of the DSU to incorporate the reforms enunciated by various stakeholders to the WTO.

* Linimose Nzeriuno Anyiwe LL.B (Benin), LL.M (University of Central Lancashire)

** Eghosa Osa Ekhator LL.B (Benin), LL.M (Hull), PhD Candidate at the Law School, University of Hull, eghosaekhator@gmail.com. Corresponding author