The Federal High Court, coram Honourable Justice A.O. Owoeye, had on 10th April 2025, delivered its decision on an originating motion filed by Bayshore Technologies Limited (“Bayshore”) against Green Fuels Limited (“Green Fuels”) in respect of an issue that arose from an ongoing arbitration. In the said ruling, the court found in favour of Bayshore and substantially granted all the reliefs sought regarding the ongoing arbitration.
Facts of the Case
The background facts leading to the case stem from an arbitration commenced by Green Fuels. In the course of the arbitral proceedings, the tribunal granted leave to Bayshore to submit its request for the production of documents by Green Fuels, following the grant of a similar request in favour of Green Fuels earlier on in the arbitration. In accordance with a procedural order issued by the arbitral tribunal, Bayshore delivered the request in the form of a Redfern Schedule for production by Green Fuels. The basis for the request by Bayshore was that the documents were not in their possession and the requested documents were germane for the just and effectual determination of Green Fuel’s claim and Bayshore’s counter-claim. Upon consideration of the request of Bayshore, the arbitral tribunal, by a subsequent procedural order, declined the request. Aggrieved, Bayshore approached the Federal High Court via an originating motion seeking an order setting aside the part of the subsequent procedural order declining its request for the production of documents by Green Fuels, as well as an order directing Green Fuels to produce the documents requested for, within 7 (seven) days of grant of the first order.
Green Fuel’s Preliminary Objection
In its written address in opposition to Bayshore’s motion, Green Fuels raised a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the application as a preliminary point. The gravamen of Green Fuel’s preliminary objection was that the court lacks substantive jurisdiction to entertain the application on the basis that under the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023 (“AMA”), the instances wherein the court may interfere with arbitration are provided in the Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2020 (“APR”) (defined as “arbitration claims”), and challenging procedural orders does not fall within the instances listed. In addition, Green Fuels argued that having regard to the definition of court under s. 91 of the AMA which means “High Court of a State, High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or the Federal High Court”, recourse must be made to ss. 251 and 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to determine which of the courts has jurisdiction to hear any such application. On this basis, Green Fuels contended that the cause of action between the parties borders on breach of contract (simple contract) and as such, the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the application. Green Fuels contended further that the application does not involve an
arbitration award or interim ruling but the examination of the procedural order of an arbitral tribunal, which would warrant the court to consider the claim and facts before the arbitral tribunal. And these facts and claims are based on contract, which is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In conclusion, the court was urged to strike out the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Opposing the preliminary objection, Bayshore argued that according to Rule 1(j) of the APR, an arbitration claim includes an application to set aside an award under s. 55 of the AMA, and that its originating motion was brought pursuant to the said section, as the procedural order in question was an interim award. Bayshore juxtaposed the aforesaid provision of the APR with Order 52 Rule 15(g) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 (“FHC Rules”) which relates to the power of the court to set aside an interim or final award. Bayshore contended further that its originating motion is an arbitration claim and its constitutional right to fair hearing is an important question of law relating to the arbitration proceedings to be determined by the court. Further, that the Federal and States High Court have concurrent jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings in Nigeria, irrespective of the provisions of s. 251 of the Constitution. In the alternative, Bayshore argued that the subject matter of the arbitration, being the supply of natural gas, is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
