site logo

GUTHRIE NIGERIA LIMITED V. KWARA STATE GOVERNMENT (2017)

case summary

Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division

Before Their Lordships:

  • Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JCA (Presided)
  • Hamma Akawu Barka JCA (Read the Lead Judgment)
  • Boloukurom O. Moses Ugo JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Guthrie Nigeria Limited

Respondents:

  • Kwara State Government
  • Kwara State Ministry of Social Development, Environment and Tourism
  • The Honorable Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Kwara State
Suit number: ACA/IL/64/2017Delivered on: 2017-11-20

Background

This appeal arises from the decision of the Kwara State High Court, which upheld the preliminary objection from the Kwara State Government, claiming that the contract involved included an arbitration clause. The appellant, Guthrie Nigeria Limited, sought compensation of N586,206,883.33 for a contract dispute regarding compensation, asserting that there was no actual dispute requiring arbitration. The lower court's ruling referred the matter to arbitration, leading to this appeal by the appellant.

Issues

The key issues to be resolved in this judgment include:

  1. Whether the presence of an arbitration clause ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court.
  2. Whether a party to an arbitration agreement who has taken steps in court proceedings relating to disputes may be granted a stay of such proceedings.
  3. Whether the arbitration clause mandated automatic referral of the suit to arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that:

  1. An arbitration clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of a court; courts maintain jurisdiction unless explicitly agreed otherwise by the parties.
  2. A party taking steps in proceedings, such as filing a notice of intention to defend, constitutes a significant step, thereby disallowing the possibility of staying proceedings for arbitration.
  3. Incorporation of an arbitration clause does not compel a court to refer suits automatically to arbitration without evidence of a genuine dispute.

Court Findings

The Court found the following:

  1. The trial court wrongly attributed the lack of jurisdiction to the presence of the arbitration clause, despite the absence of a real dispute as per the terms of the contract.
  2. The 1st respondent took steps in the proceedings (filing a notice of intention to defend), thus negating the possibility of referring the matter to arbitration due to the requirements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  3. There was insufficient basis for finding a dispute that warranted referral to arbitration, as the claim amount was accepted and fixed by the 2nd respondent as compensation in the agreement.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the lower court erred in declining jurisdiction and referring the case to arbitration. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the lower court was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Kwara State High Court for determination on its merits.

Significance

This ruling underscores the importance of clearly defined disputes between parties before invoking arbitration clauses within contracts. It reaffirms that courts maintain the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters where there is an apparent lack of dispute and emphasizes that procedural steps taken in court can forfeit the right to arbitration.

Counsel:

  • Edwin Inegedu - for the Appellant
  • H. A. Gegele (DCL), M. A. Oniye, A. M. Bello, A. A. Daibu - for the Respondents