1. 1
A SYNOPSIS OF THE REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN
JUDGMENTSIN NIGERIA
By Nnagozie Azih*
Nigeria is not party to any bilateral or multilateral treaty for the recognition and enforcementofforeign
judgments. Registration offoreign judgments in the country is essentially governedby Statutes. These
are The Reciprocal Enforcement of JudgmentsOrdinance1 (the 1922 Ordinance) and The
ForeignJudgments (Reciprocal Enforcement)Act.2 See TeleglobeAmericaInc. v. 21st Century
Tech. Ltd.3 whereinboth statutes were recognized as those governing the subjectmatter in the
country.
The 1922 Ordinancespecifically governs the registration andenforcementofjudgments obtained in
the United Kingdom and other parts ofHer Majesty’s dominions and territories to which the Ordinance
had been extended by Proclamation under Section 5 (1) thereof.4 A numberofsuch proclamations
were made between 1st December, 1922and 3rd February,1927.5
The 1961 Act on the other hand provides for the registration and enforcementofforeign judgments
obtained in other foreign countries. Accordingly, Section 3 (1) ofthe Act empowers the Minister of
Justice to directby Order, thatthe benefits conferred by PartI of the Act shall extend to judgments
given in the superior courts ofa foreign country, if he is satisfied that substantial reciprocity of
treatment will be assured in respect to the enforcement in that foreign country of judgmentsgiven in the
High Courts in Nigeria.
*is a Legal Practitioner at The Campbell Law Firm, Lagos Nigeria, and has cognate experience in general litigation,
commercial law, maritime law and general legal advisory.
1 Cap. 175, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958 which was promulgated as No. 8 of 1922 and came into
force on January 19, 1922
2 Cap. F35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which was passed in 1961
3 (2008) 17 NWLR (PART 1115) 108
4 Macaulay .v. R.Z.B., Austria (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 282 @ 296, Paras. E-G.; Grosvenor Casinos .v. Halaoui (2009) 10
NWLR (Pt. 1149) 309
5 Supreme Court of the Gold Coast Colony and of the Colony and Protectorate of Sierra Leone (1st December 1922);
Courts of the Chief Commissioners of Ashanti and of the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast (1st February 1923);
Supreme Court of the Colony of the Gambia (29th January 1925 with effect from 1st February 1925); A Superior Court in
any of the parts of the following Dominions of His Majesty – Barbados, Bermuda, British Guiana, Gibraltar, Grenada,
Jamaica, Leeward Islands, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Trinidad and Tobago (7th May 1925 with effect from 12th June 1925);
Supreme Court of Newfoundland (30th July 1925); Supreme Court of New South Wales (3rd December 1925), and
Supreme Court of the State of Victoria (3rd February 1927)

2. 2
The 1922 Ordinance,nothaving been expressly repealedby the 1961 Act, it continues to apply to the
UK and other parts of Her Majesty’s dominions andterritories to which it was extended by proclamation
under Section 5 of the Ordinance beforethe coming into force ofthe 1961 Act.6
By Section 9 (1) ofthe 1961 Act, the Act shall apply to any partof the Commonwealth and to
judgments obtained in the Courts thereofas it applies to foreign countries and to judgments obtained in
the Courts of foreign countries and the 1922 Ordinance shall cease to have effect exceptin relation to
those parts of Her Majesty’s dominions to which it extended atthe date of commencement. This
section has been held notto automatically extend the 1961 Actto Commonwealth countriesbutto
have only provided thatthe 1961 Act shall apply to the Commonwealth as itapplies to foreign countries
and where the 1922 Ordinance hadbeen extended to any country before the commencementofthe
1961 Act, the Ordinance ceases to have effect.7
However, by Section 9 (2) ofthe 1961 Act, once the Minister makes an order underSection 3 ofthe
Act with respectto a country to which the 1922 Ordinance applied,the 1922 Ordinancewill cease to
apply to that country exceptas regards judgments obtained beforethe cominginto operation ofthe
order and registeredin accordance therewith.8
As it were, the 1961 Act remains lifeless and inoperative unless and until life is breathed into it by an
Order ofthe Minister as mentioned above.No such Orderhas beenmadeto date. As such, it would
appear thata foreign Judgmentthatis not registrable under the 1922 Ordinance cannotbe registered
and enforced in Nigeria underany circumstances.
However, Section 10 (a) of the Act seems to have provideda leeway to the effect that a judgment
given before the commencement of an orderunder section 3 of this Act applying Part Iof this Act to the
foreign countrywherethe judgmentwas given, maybe registered within twelvemonths (as against the
six years generally provided forunder the Act) fromthe dateof the judgmentor such longer period as
may be allowed by a superior court in Nigeria.(Underlining supplied for emphasis)
The use ofthe word “commencement”in the afore-cited Section 10 (a) seems to suggestthat the
Section can only be invoked where the Minister had made an Orderbutthe Order is yetto come into
effect. However, the Court of Appeal in Teleglobe AmericaInc. v. 21st Century Tech. Ltd.9 relied on
Section 10 (a) in ordering the registration ofa judgmentofthe Circuit Courtof Fairfax County, Virginia,
United States (to which the 1922 Ordinance did notapply and in respectofwhich no Ministerial Order
had been made extendingthe 1961 Act). The Courtobserved as follows:
6 Macaulay .v. R.Z.B., Austria (supra) @ 296, Paras. E-G
7 Macaulay v. RZB (Supra) @ 297, Paras. E-G; Grosvenor Casinos v. Halaoui (supra)
8 Macaulay v. RZB @ 296-297 Parasw. H-A, Grosvenor Casinos V. Halaoui (Supra)
9 (supra)

3. 3
“The learnedtrial Judge interpretingthe provisionandrelying onthe case ofAndrew Mark
Macaulay v. R.Z.B. Austria…rightlymade the followingpronouncement:
‘There is nothingplacedby thiscourt to show thatthere is an order by the Minister of Justice
extending the provisionof part 1 of the Reciprocal Act toJudgments given inUnitedStates.
The applicanttherefore has twelvemonthsfrom the date ofjudgment withinwhich toregister it
in Nigeria ’
The lower court rightlyfoundthat S. 10 of the Foreign Judgment Act wasrelevant in the
determinationof whenan application canbe made once theMinister has not made an Order.”10
Supportis lent to this position of the Court of Appeal by Section 3 (2) (c) of the Act and the several
references made to Section 10 (a) by the Supreme Courtin Macaulay V. R.Z.B., Austria (supra)
(although with respectto the time within which to apply for registration) such as the following:
“By this provision, irrespective,regardless or in spite of any otherprovision in the 1990Act, any
judgment of a foreigncountry including UnitedKingdomto which Part 1 of that Act was not extended,
can only be registered within12 months fromthe dateof the judgmentor any longer period allowed by
the court registering the judgment sincethe provision of Part 1 of the said Act had not beenextended
to it. Section 4 of the 1990 Act which speaks of registeringa judgment within6 years afterthe dateof
the judgment only applies to the countrieswherePart 1 of the said Act was extended, that is to say
when the Minister madean order under the1990 Act…”
Again, in Witt & Busch Ltd. v. Dale Power Systems Plc.,11 the Supreme Courtmade the following
statement:
“However, the judgmentin Macaulay v. R.Z.B. of Austria (supra) didnot stopon the application
of the 1958 Ordinance alone. Thejudgment also went aheadto consider the Foreign Judgments
(ReciprocalEnforcement) Act,…particularlysection3 (1) and10 (a) thereof andcame tothe
conclusionthat the1990 Actis also applicableto the registration offoreignjudgmentsobtained
from the UnitedKingdom in Nigeria, pendingthecoming into force of Part 1 of theAct uponthe
extension of itsapplicationto theUnitedKingdom byan Order of the Minister of Justicein
exercise of his powers todo so under section3 of the Act. Sincethe judgmentin dispute
between the parties in the presentcasewas obtainedfrom the UnitedKingdom, in additionto
being registrableunder the1958 Ordinance whichis still applicable in Nigeria, it is also
registrable under the 1990Act where section10 (a) providesfor interim registration of such
judgment pending the comingintoforceof theOrder by the Minister of Justicedirectingthe
10 @Pages 138-139
11 (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1062) 1 @ 17, Paras. C-F

4. 4
applicationof Part 1 of the Act tothe UnitedKingdom andother countries to be specifiedin the
Order.”
Under the 1922 Ordinance, a judgmentshall notbe registered where:
(a) the original courtacted without jurisdiction; or
(b) the judgmentdebtor being a person who was neither carrying on business norordinarily
residentwithin the jurisdiction of the original courtdid notvoluntarily appear or otherwise
submitor agree to submitto the jurisdiction of that court; or
(c) the judgmentdebtor being the defendantin the proceedings was notduly served with the
process ofthe original court, and did notappear,notwithstanding that he was ordinarily
residentor was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of that courtor agreed to submitto
the jurisdiction ofthat court; or
(d) the judgmentwas obtained by fraud; or
(e) the judgmentdebtor satisfied the courteither that an appeal is pending, or thathe is entitled
and intends to appeal againstthe judgment; or
(f) the judgmentwas in respectof a cause ofaction which for reasons ofpublic policy or for some
other similar reason could nothave been entertainedby the registering court.12
Under the 1961 Act, a judgmentshall notbe registered ifat the date of the application:
(a) it has been wholly satisfied; or
(b) it could notbe enforced by execution in the country of the original court.13
Again, under the 1961 Act, registration shall or may be setaside respectively undersubparagraphs (a)
and (b) ofSection 6 (1) on the application of any party againstwhom a registered judgmentmay be
enforced.14 For purposesofthe foregoing Section 6, subsections (2) and (3) thereofrespectively
provide for instances where the Courts of the country of the original Courtshall be deemed to have had
jurisdiction and notbe deemedto have had jurisdiction.15
It is not the duty of the Court before which an application for registration of a foreign judgmentis
broughtto sit on appeal over the decision ofthe original Courtthat delivered the judgmentsoughtto be
12 Section 3 (2) (a)-(f); GrosvenorCasinos V. Halaoui (Supra); Conoil Plc v. Vitol S.A (2012) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1283) 50 @ 74-75
Paras. D-F
13 Section 4 (1); Teleglobe (supra)
14 See Grosvenor Casinos .v. Halaoui (Supra)
15
See Grosvenor Casinos V. Halaoui (Supra) @ 342-344.

5. 5
registered. The JudgmentDebtor is expected to have exercised his rightofappeal underthe laws of
the foreign country. All the Courtbefore which the application for registration is broughtneeds to
ensure is that the Applicantcomplies with the requirements ofthe domestic laws on registration of
foreign judgment.16
As for the Court with jurisdiction, although the CourtofAppeal’s decision on Conoil Plc. v. Vitol S.A
may seem to suggestthatthe subjectmatter of the original suitpursuantto which the foreign judgment
was given would determine the Court with jurisdiction, this does notseem to be the case because the
application for registration may be madeto a High Court or a superior Court in Nigeria.17
Application for registration is usually by way of an Originating Petition, either ex parte or on notice
although, if ex parte, the Judge mayorderthatthe JudgmentDebtor be puton notice.18
Registration under the 1922 Ordinance mustbe done within 12 months.19 Such judgments cannotin
the absence ofthe Minister’s Order under Section 3 (1) ofthe 1961 Act benefitfrom the provision of
Section 4 of the1961 Act which provides for a six year period.20
Registration under Section 10 (a) ofthe 1961 Act mustbe done within 12 months or such longer time
as the courtmay permit.21
Upon registration, the judgmentshall, as from the date ofregistration, be of the same force and effect
and proceedings may be taken thereonas ifit had been a judgmentoriginally obtained or enteredup
on the date of registration in the registering court; the registering courtshall have the same control and
jurisdiction over the judgmentas it has over similarjudgments given by itselfbutin so far only as
relates to executions and the reasonablecosts ofand incidental to the registration of the judgment
(including the costs of obtaining a certified copy thereof from the original courtand the application for
registration) shall be recoverablein like manneras ifthey were sums payableunderthe judgment.22
The Minister ofJustice may by Order23 directthatthe judgments given in a country will notbe
enforceable in Nigeria ifhe is satisfied that the country’s treatmentofjudgments emanating from
Nigeria is less favourable than that accorded by Nigerian courts to judgments made in thatcountry.
16 Conoil Plc v. Vitol S.A (supra) at 80, Paras. A-F; Teleglobe’s Case (Supra)
17 See Section 3(1) of the 1922 Ordinance & Section 4(1) of the 1961 Act
18 See Orders1 & 4 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Rules of 1922
19 Section 3 of the Ordinance. - Grosvenor Casinos V. Halaoui (Supra)
20 Macaulay V. R.Z.B., Austria; Marine & General Assurance Company Plc v. O. U. Ins. Ltd (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 971) 622
21 See Teleglobe’s Case.
22 Section 3 (3) of the 1922 Ordinance; Section 4 (2) of the 1961 Act. Grosvenor Casinos v. Halaoui @ 337, Paras. C-G.
23 Pursuant to his powers underSection 12 of the 1961 Act