How to Challenge an Arbitral Tribunal’s Jurisdiction in Nigeria (step-by-step Under the Arbitration & Mediation Act 2023)

To challenge arbitral jurisdiction, Nigerian practitioners must now work within the framework of the Arbitration & Mediation Act 2023 (AMA 2023), which reshaped how tribunals and courts share the task of deciding whether an arbitration should proceed at all. The Act consolidated Nigeria’s arbitration regime, codified the competence-competence doctrine, and refined the points at which a Nigerian court may intervene in an ongoing reference. For in-house counsel and external lawyers, the practical questions are procedural: when to object, what to file, which forum to approach, and how to avoid waiving the very right you are trying to preserve.

This guide sets out the step-by-step process, the documents you need, realistic timelines, indicative costs, and the tactical traps that commonly derail a jurisdictional objection.

Overview, what changed in 2023 and why this matters

The Arbitration & Mediation Act 2023 repealed and replaced the previous Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Cap. A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004), modernising Nigeria’s arbitration law and drawing heavily on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Among its most consequential features for anyone seeking to challenge arbitral jurisdiction in Nigeria is its treatment of the competence-competence principle, the rule that a tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The Act preserves the tribunal’s primary role while defining the circumstances in which the Nigerian courts may be asked to determine or review a jurisdictional question.

This matters because jurisdictional disputes rarely arise in a vacuum. They surface in parallel court litigation where one party ignores the arbitration clause and sues; in multi-contract transactions where only some agreements contain an arbitration clause; and in ad hoc references where procedural timing is governed by the parties’ chosen rules rather than an institution’s secretariat. The AMA 2023 draws clearer lines around the tribunal-court interface, and Nigerian courts have generally shown measured deference to the tribunal’s competence-competence, while retaining the power to intervene where the arbitration agreement’s existence or validity is genuinely in issue.

The practical effect is that a party wishing to challenge arbitral jurisdiction in Nigeria-based disputes must think in two forums at once: the tribunal, where the objection must almost always be raised first and promptly; and the court, which may be approached for a stay order, a declaration, or interim relief in defined circumstances. Getting the sequencing right is the difference between a preserved objection and one which may be deemed waived.

Types of arbitration relevant to jurisdictional issues

Three forms of arbitration commonly raise jurisdictional questions. Ad hoc arbitration is administered by the parties themselves, often under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, so timing for objections turns on those rules and the tribunal’s procedural orders. Institutional arbitration is administered by a body such as the ICC, the Lagos Court of Arbitration, or a regional centre, whose rules set express windows for preliminary objections and may allow a secretariat-level prima facie review. Investor-state arbitration engages treaty-based consent and raises distinct jurisdictional questions about the scope of the state’s offer to arbitrate. Identifying which category applies is the first move in any jurisdictional strategy.

Eligibility – when you can challenge tribunal jurisdiction

The party most commonly raising a jurisdictional objection is the respondent who contends there is no valid arbitration agreement, that the dispute falls outside the clause, or that the tribunal was improperly constituted. A claimant may also raise jurisdictional points where a counterclaim exceeds the scope of consent. Third parties drawn into a reference, for example, a non-signatory said to be bound through a corporate group or agency argument, may object that they never consented to arbitrate at all. The starting point is always the arbitration agreement: its wording defines the scope of consent, the seat, the governing law, and any carve-outs that reserve certain matters to the courts.

Eligibility is not open-ended. A party that participates in the reference without objection, or that takes steps inconsistent with a jurisdictional challenge, may find itself precluded. The AMA 2023 requires objections to be made at defined procedural moments, and the doctrines of waiver and estoppel operate to bar late challenges.

When an objection is futile (waiver, estoppel)

An objection is likely to fail where the objecting party has already submitted to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, for instance, by filing a full defence on the merits without reserving the point, appointing an arbitrator without protest, or agreeing terms of reference that record no jurisdictional reservation. Waiver may also arise where a party knows of a defect (such as an improperly constituted tribunal) and proceeds regardless. Estoppel may bite where a party’s prior conduct or representations induced the other side to rely on the arbitration proceeding. The lesson is procedural discipline: reserve the objection in writing at the earliest admissible moment, even if you intend to argue it later.

Step-by-step process to challenge arbitral jurisdiction

The core of any strategy to challenge arbitral jurisdiction in Nigeria is a disciplined sequence. Each step below identifies who acts, what to file, the timing, and the tactical considerations. Follow them in order and document each move.

1. Step 1, Immediate triage: review clause, arbitration rules & contract

   Before drafting anything, read the arbitration clause and the whole contract chain. Identify the seat, the governing law of the contract and of the arbitration agreement (they may differ), the chosen rules (ICC, UNCITRAL, or a regional centre), and any “exclusive courts” or forum-selection wording that may conflict with the arbitration clause. In multi-contract transactions, map which agreements contain arbitration clauses and whether the dispute straddles more than one. This triage tells you whether a viable jurisdictional objection exists and which forum governs the timing. Allow 1–3 business days from notice of the dispute, this is fast, deliberate analysis, not a full merits review.

2. Step 2, File a written jurisdictional objection with the tribunal

   Under the AMA 2023, a plea that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction must ordinarily be raised no later than the submission of the statement of defence, and a plea that the tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority must be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond scope arises during the proceedings. Delay risks waiver, so file promptly and in writing. Institutional rules may impose their own, often shorter, windows within the procedural calendar.

   The written objection should set out, concisely: the grounds (no arbitration agreement, invalid or inoperative clause, dispute outside scope, improperly constituted tribunal); the governing law and evidence relied on; and the relief sought, usually that the tribunal decline jurisdiction and dismiss or stay the reference. You may also request that the jurisdictional question be heard and decided as a preliminary question before any merits phase (bifurcation).

   Tactical note: under the AMA 2023 a tribunal may rule on a jurisdictional plea either as a preliminary question or in the final award. Record the objection expressly so there is no argument later that it was waived, and note that even where a party has appointed or participated in the appointment of an arbitrator, this does not by itself preclude a jurisdictional plea.

3. Step 3, Apply to court for a stay of court proceedings (if parallel litigation)

   Where the other side has commenced court proceedings that overlap with the arbitration agreement, apply to the Nigerian court for a stay in favour of arbitration. The application should exhibit the arbitration agreement, the court pleadings showing the overlapping relief, and evidence that the claim falls within the scope of the clause. The court will examine whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed before deciding whether to refer the parties to arbitration. Emergency filings are possible where there is urgency; a contested hearing typically takes several weeks or months depending on the court’s calendar.

4. Step 4, Apply to court for a declaration that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction or for injunctive relief

   Where the dispute is genuinely about whether any arbitration agreement exists or is valid, a party may in defined circumstances ask the court to determine the point, or seek related relief. Grounds include the absence of any arbitration agreement, an invalid or void clause, or a dispute that plainly falls outside the tribunal’s authority. This route can carry greater enforcement weight because a court ruling is harder to reopen, but it is slower and appeal paths add considerable time. Bear in mind that the AMA 2023 generally directs jurisdictional questions to the tribunal in the first instance; reserve direct court applications for cases where the statute and facts clearly support them.

5. Step 5, Preserve evidence and witness statements for the jurisdictional hearing

   Assemble and lock down the evidence that supports the objection: the signed contract and any amendments, powers of attorney and board resolutions proving signatory authority, the full contract chain, correspondence bearing on consent or waiver, and witness statements on the factual matrix. Where jurisdiction turns on technical questions, corporate separateness, group structures, or the mechanics of a novation, retain an expert. Prepare this within 1–4 weeks of filing the objection so it is ready for the hearing.

6. Step 6, Tactical options after the tribunal or court decision

   Under the AMA 2023, where a tribunal rules on jurisdiction as a preliminary question, a party may, within the statutory time limit set by the Act, apply to the court to decide the matter. If the tribunal asserts jurisdiction in the final award, weigh a set-aside application against enforcement resistance, bearing in mind the strict statutory deadline for challenging awards. Bifurcation can front-load the jurisdictional question and avoid the cost of a full merits hearing if the objection succeeds. Choose the path that best protects your challenge and enforcement position, and check the exact statutory deadlines in the Act before acting.

HowTo summary checklist:

• Triage the clause and rules within 1–3 business days.
• File a written jurisdictional objection with the tribunal no later than the statement of defence.
• Request bifurcation or a preliminary ruling where strategically advantageous.
• Apply for a court stay if parallel litigation exists.
• Seek court determination or related relief where the agreement’s existence or validity is in issue and the statute allows.
• Preserve evidence and witness statements for the hearing.
• Plan post-decision options, court review of a preliminary ruling, set-aside, or enforcement resistance.

Step / Who / Duration timeline

Required documents to challenge arbitral jurisdiction

A jurisdictional objection stands or falls on documentary proof. Before you file, assemble the materials below so the tribunal or court can resolve the factual and legal questions on a complete record. Incomplete evidence is one of the most common reasons a well-founded objection fails.

Timeline & deadlines, practical timing traps

Timing is where jurisdictional challenges are most often lost. The overriding rule is to object early: under the AMA 2023 raise the jurisdictional plea no later than the statement of defence, record it in writing, and never let it slip into a full defence on the merits without an express reservation. Institutional rules and ad hoc regimes impose different windows, an ICC reference sets deadlines through its terms of reference and procedural timetable, while a UNCITRAL ad hoc reference depends on the tribunal’s first procedural order.

Watch three traps in particular. First, do not let the merits timetable overtake the jurisdictional one; if you must serve a defence, expressly reserve the objection. Second, court applications for a stay carry their own filing and practice requirements. Third, if the tribunal rules against you on jurisdiction as a preliminary question, the window to ask the court to decide the matter, and any later set-aside application, is governed by strict statutory time limits under the AMA 2023. Diary every deadline the moment it is triggered, and confirm the precise periods in the Act.

Costs & fees to challenge arbitral jurisdiction

Costs vary widely with the seniority of counsel, the complexity of the jurisdictional facts, the institution involved, and the amount in dispute. Court filing fees for a stay or related application are generally modest; the real drivers are counsel fees, expert reports, and the tribunal deposits triggered by an institutional reference. The table below is merely indicative. Confirm current fee schedules with the relevant court registry and arbitral institution before budgeting.

These ranges are indicative only and should be confirmed against up-to-date court and institutional fee schedules at the time of filing.

Comparison: tribunal decides vs court determination

A recurring strategic choice is whether to let the tribunal decide the jurisdictional question itself or to seek a court determination where the statute permits. The trade-offs are set out below.

Current practice notes

Under the AMA 2023, Nigerian courts have generally shown measured deference to the tribunal’s competence-competence, intervening principally where the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement is genuinely in dispute or where the statute expressly permits court involvement. Practitioners increasingly use bifurcation to resolve threshold jurisdictional questions before the merits, which saves cost where the objection succeeds. Improved case management in some courts has shortened certain timelines, though contested applications still turn on calendar availability. The broad trend is toward resolving jurisdictional challenges early and cleanly. For consolidated guidance on clause drafting, enforcement, and interim relief, see the Commercial Arbitration Lawyers Nigeria 2026, clause drafting & enforcement resource.

Common pitfalls & how to avoid them

Most failed jurisdictional challenges share a small set of avoidable errors. Guard against each of the following.

• Missing the statutory window. Raise and record the jurisdictional plea in writing no later than the statement of defence; a late objection invites a waiver argument that can be fatal.
• Failing to secure contemporaneous evidence. Preserve the signed agreement, authority documents, and correspondence before they are lost or disputed.
• Assuming the court will take the question first. Under the AMA 2023 the tribunal is usually the first port of call; do not assume a court will decide jurisdiction unless the statute and facts support it.
• Misstating governing law or seat. An inaccurate submission on seat or governing law can undermine your own jurisdictional position, verify before you plead.
• Ignoring institutional timing rules. Expedited procedures, emergency arbitrator provisions, and objection windows differ by institution; read them before filing.
• Poorly drafted jurisdictional affidavits. Keep affidavits fact-focused and tied to documents rather than argument.
• Failing to reserve costs or security. Ask for costs and, where suitable, security at the appropriate stage rather than after the decision.

Conclusion

To challenge arbitral jurisdiction Nigeria practitioners must combine legal analysis with procedural discipline: read the clause and rules first, object in writing no later than the statement of defence, choose the right forum for a stay or determination, and preserve the evidence that will decide the point. The Arbitration & Mediation Act 2023 has codified the competence-competence doctrine and the tribunal-court interface, and Nigerian courts have applied it with measured deference to tribunals while retaining the power to intervene where an arbitration agreement’s existence or validity is genuinely in issue. Move early, document every step, diary every statutory deadline, and align your tactical choices with your eventual enforcement and challenge position.

For clause drafting and enforcement context, review the Commercial Arbitration Lawyers Nigeria 2026 resource.

Sources

1. National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
2. Supreme Court of Nigeria
3. Nigerian Bar Association
4. United Nations Treaty Collection, New York Convention (1958)
5. UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
6. Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS)