Views
Can a Foreign Company that is not registered in Nigeria maintain an action in Nigerian Courts?
This note briefly analyses the recent decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in BCE Consulting Engineers v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation[1]on the issue of a foreign company that is not registered in Nigeria having the capacity to sue in Nigeria.
Generally, Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 requires that a foreign company must be registered in Nigeria before it can carry on business in Nigeria. This provision is a carryover of the former Section 54 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990, which contains a similar provision.
However, Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, makes express provisions for a foreign company to sue and be sued in its corporate name or that of its agent (despite the fact that it is not a registered or incorporated company in Nigeria for the purpose of carrying on business (under Section 78). The same provision was previously enacted in Section 60(b) of the Company and Allied Matters Act 1990. Section 60(b) of the Company and Allied Matters Act 1990 has been applied by Nigerian courts in some cases prior to the enactment of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020.
In Companhia Brasileira De Infraestrututira (INFAZ) v Companhia Brasileira De Entrepostos E Commercio (COBEC) (Nig) Ltd,[2] the plaintiff-appellant was a company allegedly registered in accordance with Brazilian law. The plaintiff-appellant was also a shareholder with some Nigerian persons, which constituted the defendant-respondent company. There was a change in the name of the plaintiff-appellant to Companhia Brasileira De Infraestutura Fazendaria, which was allegedly in accordance with Brazilian law. The plaintiff-appellant prayed for the winding-up of the defendant-respondent company. The application was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as well. One of the issues for consideration was whether the plaintiff-appellant was competent to sue and be sued in Nigeria.
The Court of Appeal held that by virtue of Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990, a foreign company not registered in Nigeria can sue and be sued in Nigerian courts provided that said foreign company was duly incorporated according to the laws of a foreign state recognised in Nigeria. But, if there is a change in the name of that foreign company, evidence of compliance with the law of the land where it was incorporated must be given. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal held that there was no material evidence placed before the court to establish the change of name of the plaintiff-appellant company, and the resolution for change of name in Brazil that was provided before the court was deemed insufficient.[3]
In Edicomsa International Inc and Associates v CITEC International Estates Ltd,[4] the plaintiff-appellant was a foreign company incorporated in the United States of America. However, it was not registered in Nigeria. The plaintiff-appellant was engaged by the defendant-respondent to provide some services. Subsequently, there was a disagreement between the parties on payments due to the plaintiff-appellant, which led to the action before the court. The defendant-respondent, inter alia, challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court on the basis that the plaintiff-appellant was not registered in Nigeria. The trial court upheld the submission of the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously allowed the appeal. The majority of the Court of Appeal rightly applied Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 to the effect that the plaintiff-appellant, though not registered in Nigeria, could sue in Nigeria.[5]
In the recent case of BCE Consulting Engineers v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation[6] the Nigerian Supreme Court did not consider Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 (now Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020), though its final decision was correct. In that case, the claimant/1st appellant claimed that it entered into a consultancy service agreement with the defendant/respondent which the latter unlawfully terminated. The plaintiff/1st appellant therefore filed an action via originating summons in the Federal High Court, Lagos State Judicial Division, seeking declaratory reliefs to that effect. It further claimed the total value of outstanding claims on invoices submitted by it, special and general damages. One of the issues canvassed at the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the contract entered into by the claimant-1st appellant a foreign company without incorporation in Nigeria was illegal and unenforceable? The Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed with Peter-Odilli JSC who held as follows in her leading judgment:
“I agree with learned counsel for the appellants that section 54 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act [Cap C20 LFN 2004][7] does not apply to the facts of this case because the situation before the court in this case is one of a firm registered in Nigeria and entering into contract with the respondent but subsequently to the execution of the contract incorporating itself outside Nigeria as a limited liability company”.[8]
It is submitted that the Supreme Court should also have had regard to Article 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 (now Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020) in holding that assuming the claimant-1st appellant was a foreign company that was not registered in Nigeria, it was capable of maintaining an action in Nigeria. This would have put to rest any question as to the capacity of a foreign company that is not registered in Nigeria to sue or be sued in Nigeria. It would also have made the Supreme Court’s decision exhaustive in this regard.
[1] (2021) All FWLR (Pt. 1083) 359.
[2](2004) 13 NWLR 376.
[3]Companhia Brasileira De Infraestrututira v Cobec (Nig) Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR 376, 391, 395 (Aderemi JCA, as he then was) (overturned on the point of proof of change of the name of the foreign company, but the decision that the foreign company could sue and be sued was affirmed by the Nigerian Supreme Court in INFAZ v COBEC (Nig) Ltd (2018) 12 NWLR 127). See also Watanmal (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Liz Olofin and Company Plc (1997) LPELR-6224(CA) 13 (Musdapher JCA as he then was); NU Metro Retail (Nig) Ltd v. Tradex S.R.L & Anotherr (2017) LPELR-42329(CA) 41-2 (Garba JCA as he then was).
[4](2006) 4 NWLR 114.
[5]Edicomsa International Inc and Associates v CITEC International Estates Ltd (2006) 4 NWLR 114, 125-26 (Rhodes-Vivour JCA, as he then was), 130 (Omage JCA). See also B.C.N.N. Ltd. v. Backbone Tech. Net. Inc. (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1480) 511. Cf. AG Butler (Nig) (Ltd) v The Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd (2020) LPELR -51141 (CA). Cf. Hung & Ors v. EC Investment Co. (Nig) Ltd (2016) LPELR -42125 (CA) (Tur JCA dissenting).
[6] (2021) All FWLR (Pt. 1083) 359
[7] “Subject to sections 56 to 59 of this Act, every foreign company which before or after the commencement of this Act was incorporated outside Nigeria, and having the intention of carrying on business in Nigeria, shall take all steps necessary to obtain incorporation as a separate entity in Nigeria for that purpose, but until so incorporated, the foreign company shall not carry on business in Nigeria or exercise any of the powers of a registered company and shall not have a place of business or an address for service of documents or processes in Nigeria for any purpose other than receipt of notices and other documents, as matters preliminary to incorporation under this Act.” This provision is now contained in Section 78 of the the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020.
[8] ibid, 396.
New Principles of Sovereign Immunity from Enforcement in India: The Good, The Bad, And The Uncertain (Part I)
This post was written by Harshal Morwale, an India-qualified international arbitration lawyer working as an associate with a premier Indian law firm in New Delhi; LLM from the MIDS Geneva Program (2019-2020); alumnus of the Hague Academy of International Law.
Sovereign immunity from enforcement would undoubtedly be a topic of interest to all the commercial parties contracting with state or state entities. After all, an award is only worth something when you can enforce it. The topic received considerable attention in India recently, when the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) ruled on the question of immunity from enforcement in case of commercial transactions (KLA Const Tech v. Afghanistan Embassy). This ruling is noteworthy because India does not have a consolidated sovereign immunity law, and this ruling is one of the first attempts to examine immunity from enforcement.
This post is part I of the two-part blog post. This part examines the decision of the DHC and identifies issues emanating from it. The post also delves into the principles of international law of state immunity and deals with the relevance of diplomatic immunity in the current context. The second part (forthcoming) will explore the issue of consent to the arbitration being construed as a waiver of immunity from enforcement and deal with the problem of whether the state’s property can be attached to satisfy the commercial arbitral award against a diplomatic mission.
DHC: No Sovereign Immunity From Enforcement In Case Of Commercial Transactions
In the case of KLA Const Tech v. Afghanistan Embassy, KLA Const Technologies (“claimant”) and the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in India (“respondent”) entered into a contract containing an arbitration clause for rehabilitation of the Afghanistan Embassy. During the course of the execution of works, a dispute arose between the parties. The claimant initiated the arbitration. An ex parte award was passed in favor of the claimant by the Sole Arbitrator. Since the respondent did not challenge the award, the claimant seeks its enforcement in India in line with Section 36(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, whereby enforcement cannot be sought until the deadline to challenge the award has passed. In the enforcement proceedings, the DHC inter alia focused on immunity from enforcement of the arbitral award arising out of a commercial transaction.
The claimant argued that the respondent is not entitled to state immunity because, in its opinion, entering into an arbitration agreement constitutes “waiver of Sovereign Immunity.” Further, relying on Articles 10 and 19 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (“UNCJIS”), the claimant argued that the states cannot claim immunity in case of commercial transactions and the UNCJIS expressly restricts a Foreign State from invoking sovereign immunity against post-judgment measures, such as attachment against the property of the State in case of international commercial arbitration.
After analyzing the claimant’s arguments and relevant case laws, the DHC reached the following decision:
- In a contract arising out of a commercial transaction, a foreign state cannot seek sovereign immunity to stall the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered against it.
- No separate consent for enforcement is necessary, and consent to arbitrate is sufficient to wave the immunity. The DHC opined that this ruling is in “consonance with the growing International Law principle of restrictive immunity.”
The DHC ordered the respondent to declare inter alia all its assets, bank accounts in India, etc., by a stipulated date. Since the respondent did not appear and did not make any declaration by that date, the DHC has granted time to the claimant to trace the attachable properties of the respondent.
The decision has been well received in the Indian legal community and has been lauded as a pro-arbitration decision as it promotes prompt enforcement of arbitral awards in India, regardless of the identity of the award-debtor. The decision is also one of the first attempts to define immunity from ‘enforcement’ in India. The existing law of sovereign immunity in India is limited to section 86 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, which requires the permission of the Central Government in order to subject the sovereign state to civil proceedings in India. Therefore, the DHC’s decision is critical in the development of sovereign immunity jurisprudence in India.
Difference Between Jurisdictional Immunity And Enforcement Immunity Under The UNCJIS
It is worth noting that the DHC did not explicitly address the claimant’s argument regarding the UNCJIS. Regardless, it is submitted that the claimant’s argument relying on articles 10 and 19 of the UNCJIS is flimsy. This is particularly because the UNCJIS recognizes two different immunities – jurisdiction immunity and enforcement immunity. Article 10 of the UNCJIS, which provides for waiver of immunity in case of commercial transactions, is limited to immunity from jurisdiction and not from enforcement. Further, Article 20 of the UNCJIS clearly states that the state’s consent to be subjected to jurisdiction shall not imply consent to enforcement. As argued by the late Professor James Crawford, “waiver of immunity from jurisdiction does not per se entail waiver of immunity from execution.”
Notwithstanding the above, even the DHC itself refrained from appreciating the distinction between immunity from jurisdiction and immunity from enforcement. The distinction is critical not only under international law but also under domestic statutes like the English Sovereign Immunity Act (“UKSIA”). It is submitted that Indian jurisprudence, which lacks guidance on this issue, could have benefitted from a more intricate analysis featuring the rationale of different immunities, the standard of waivers, as well as the relevance of Article 20 of UNCJIS.
Curious Framing Of The Question By The DHC
In the current case, the DHC framed the question of sovereign immunity from enforcement as follows: Whether a Foreign State can claim Sovereign Immunity against enforcement of arbitral award arising out of a commercial transaction? On the face of it, the DHC decided a broad point that the award is enforceable as long as the underlying transaction is commercial. The real struggle for the claimants would be to determine and define which property would be immune from enforcement and which wouldn’t.
The framing of the issue is interesting because the sovereign state immunity from enforcement has generally been perceived as a material issue rather than a personal issue. In other words, the question of state immunity from enforcement has been framed as ‘what subject matter can be attached’ and not ‘whether a particular debtor can claim it in a sovereign capacity’. In one of the case laws analyzed by the DHC (Birch Shipping Corp. v. The Embassy of the United Republic of Tanzania), the defendant had argued that under the terms of the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, its “property” was “immune from the attachment.” Further, in the operative part of the judgment, the US District Court stated, “the property at issue here is not immune from attachment.” Unlike the DHC’s approach, the question of immunity from enforcement in the Birch Shipping case was argued and ruled upon as a material issue rather than a personal one.
While the decision of the DHC could have a far-reaching impact, there is a degree of uncertainty around the decision. The DHC ruled that as long as the transaction subject to arbitration is commercial, the award is enforceable. There remains uncertainty on whether this ruling means that all properties of the sovereign state can be attached when the transaction is commercial. Would this also mean diplomatic property could be attached? The DHC still has the opportunity to clarify this as the specific properties of the respondent for the attachment are yet to be determined, and the claimant has been granted time to identify the attachable properties.
Diplomatic Immunity or Sovereign Immunity: Which One Would Apply?
While state immunity and diplomatic immunity both provide protection against proceedings and enforcements in the foreign court or forum, the subjects of both immunities are different. While sovereign immunity aims to protect the sovereign states and their instrumentalities, diplomatic immunity specifically covers the diplomatic missions of the foreign states. The law and state practice on sovereign immunity are not uniform. On the other hand, the law of diplomatic immunity has been codified by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (“VCDR”). Unlike the UNCJIS, the VCDR is in force and has been adopted by over 190 states, including India and Afghanistan.
Since the party to the contract, the arbitration, and the enforcement proceedings in the current case is an embassy, which is independently protected by the diplomatic immunity, the decision of the DHC could have featured analysis on the diplomatic immunity in addition to the state immunity. Like the UNCJIS, the VCDR recognizes the distinction between jurisdictional and enforcement immunities. Under Article 32(4) of the VCDR, the waiver from jurisdictional immunity does not imply consent to enforcement, for which a separate waiver shall be necessary.
Additionally, the DHC had an opportunity to objectively determine whether the act was sovereign or diplomatic. In Re P (Diplomatic Immunity: Jurisdiction), the English Court undertook an objective characterization of the entity’s actions to determine whether they were sovereign or diplomatic. The characterization is critical because it determines the kind of immunity the respondent is subject to.
In the current case, the contract for works entered into by the embassy appears to be an act undertaken in a diplomatic capacity. Hence, arguably, the primary analysis of the DHC should have revolved around diplomatic immunity. It is not to argue that the conclusion of the DHC would have been different if the focus was on diplomatic immunity. However, the analysis of diplomatic immunity, either independently or together with the sovereign immunity, would have substantially bolstered the significance of the decision considering that the interplay between sovereign and diplomatic immunities under Indian law deserves more clarity.
One might argue that perhaps the DHC did not deal with diplomatic immunity because it was raised neither by the claimant nor by the non-participating respondent. This raises the question – whether the courts must raise the issue of immunity proprio motu? The position of law on this is not entirely clear. While section 1(2) of the UKSIA prescribes a duty of the Court to raise the question of immunity proprio motu, the ICJ specifically rejected this approach in the Case Concerning Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France) (para 196). Both of these approaches, however, relate to sovereign immunity, and there lacks clarity on the issue in the context of diplomatic immunity.
Conclusion
As noted above, despite being one of the first Indian decisions to deal with state immunity from an international law perspective, the decision leaves several questions open, such as the determination of attachable properties and the relevance of diplomatic immunity in the current context. It remains to be seen what approach the DHC takes to resolve some of these issues in the upcoming hearings.
The next part of the post explores the issue of consent to the arbitration being construed as a waiver of immunity from enforcement. The next part also deals with the problem – whether the state’s property can be attached to satisfy the commercial arbitral award against a diplomatic mission.
Forum Selection Clauses and Cruise Ship Contracts
On August 19, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its latest decision on foreign forum selection clauses in cruise ship contracts. The case was Turner v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. The plaintiff was an American cruise ship passenger, Paul Turner, who brought a class action in federal district court in Florida alleging that the cruise line’s “negligence contributed to an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the Costa Luminosa during his transatlantic voyage beginning on March 5, 2020.”
The cruise line moved to dismiss the case on the basis of a forum selection clause in the ticket mandating that all disputes be resolved by a court in Genoa, Italy. The contract also contained a choice-of-law clause selecting Italian law. By way of background, it is important to note that (1) the parent company for the cruise line was headquartered in Italy, (2) its operating subsidiary was headquartered in Florida, (3) the cruise was to begin in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and (4) the cruise was to terminate in the Canary Islands.
The Eleventh Circuit never reached the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, it sided with the cruise line, enforced the Italian forum selection clause, and dismissed the case on the basis of forum non conveniens. A critique of the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Turner is set forth below.
Years ago, the U.S. Congress enacted a law imposing limits on the ability of cruise lines to dictate terms to their passengers. 46 U.S.C. § 30509 provides in relevant part:
The owner . . . of a vessel transporting passengers . . . between a port in the United States and a port in a foreign country, may not include in a . . . contract a provision limiting . . . the liability of the owner . . . for personal injury or death caused by the negligence or fault of the owner or the owner’s employees or agents . . . . A provision described in paragraph (1) is void.
Boiled down to its essence, the statute provides that any provision in a cruise ship contract that caps the damages in a personal injury case is void. If the cruise ship were to write an express provision into its passenger contracts capping the damages recoverable by plaintiffs such as Paul Turner at $500,000, that provision would be void as contrary to U.S. public policy.
The cruise lines are sharp enough, however, to know not to write express limitations directly into their contracts. Instead, they have sought to achieve the same end via a choice-of-law clause. The contract in Turner had a choice-of-law clause selecting Italian law. Italy is a party to an international treaty known as the Athens Convention. The Athens Convention, which is part of Italian law, caps the liability of cruise lines at roughly $568,000 in personal injury cases. If a U.S. court were to give effect to the Italian choice-of-law clause and apply Italian law on these facts, therefore, it would be required to apply the liability cap set forth in the Athens Convention. It seems highly unlikely that any U.S. court would enforce an Italian choice-of-law clause on these facts given the language in Section 30509.
Enter the forum selection clause. If the forum selection clause is enforced, then the case must be brought before an Italian court. An Italian court is likely to enforce an Italian choice-of-law clause and apply the Athens Convention. If the Athens Convention is applied, the plaintiff’s damages will be capped at roughly $568,000. To enforce the Italian forum selection clause, therefore, is to take the first step down a path that will ultimately result in the imposition of liability caps in contravention of Section 30509. The question at hand, therefore, is whether the Eleventh Circuit was correct to enforce the forum selection clause knowing that this would be the result.
While the court clearly believed that it reached the right outcome, its analysis leaves much to be desired. In support of its decision, the court offered the following reasoning:
[B]oth we and the Supreme Court have directly rejected the proposition that a routine cruise ship forum selection clause is a limitation on liability that contravenes § 30509(a), even when it points to a forum that is inconvenient for the plaintiff. Shute, 499 U.S. at 596–97 (“[R]espondents cite no authority for their contention that Congress’ intent in enacting § [30509(a)] was to avoid having a plaintiff travel to a distant forum in order to litigate. The legislative history of § [30509(a)] suggests instead that this provision was enacted in response to passenger-ticket conditions purporting to limit the shipowner’s liability for negligence or to remove the issue of liability from the scrutiny of any court by means of a clause providing that ‘the question of liability and the measure of damages shall be determined by arbitration.’ There was no prohibition of a forum-selection clause.”)
The problem with this argument is that there was no evidence in Shute—none—suggesting that the enforcement of the forum selection clause in that case would lead to the imposition of a formal liability cap. Indeed, the very next sentence in the passage from Shute quoted above states that “[b]ecause the clause before us . . . does not purport to limit petitioner’s liability for negligence, it does not violate [Section 30509].” This language suggests that if enforcement of a forum selection clause would operate to limit the cruise line’s liability for negligence, it would not be enforceable. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision makes no mention of this language.
The Turner court also cites to a prior Eleventh Circuit decision, Estate of Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, for the proposition that “46 U.S.C. § 30509(a) does not bar a ship owner from including a forum selection clause in a passage contract, even if the chosen forum might apply substantive law that would impose a limitation on liability.” I explain the many, many problems with the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Myhra here. At a minimum, however, the Myhra decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s admonition in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc that “in the event the choice-of-forum and choice-of-law clauses operated in tandem as a prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies . . . we would have little hesitation in condemning the agreement as against public policy.” There is no serious question that the cruise line is here attempting to use an Italian choice-of-law clause and an Italian forum selection clause “in tandem” to deprive the plaintiffs in Turner of their statutory right to be free of a damages cap. This attempt would seem to be foreclosed by the language in Mitsubishi. The Eleventh Circuit does not, however, cite Mitsubishi in its decision.
At the end of the day, the question before the Eleventh Circuit in Turner was whether a cruise company may deprive a U.S. passenger of rights guaranteed by a federal statute by writing an Italian choice-of-law clause and an Italian forum selection clause into a contract of adhesion. The Eleventh Circuit concluded the answer is yes. I have my doubts.
News
HCCH Monthly Update: May 2024
Conventions & Instruments
On 14 May 2024, Georgia deposited its instrument of ratification of the 2007 Child Support Convention and of the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol. With the ratification of Georgia, 51 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention, while 32 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol. More information is available here.
Meetings & Events
On 14 May 2024, the kick-off meeting of the Experts’ Group (EG) on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) was held online. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG will study the applicable law and jurisdiction issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs. More information is available here.
From 14 to 17 May 2024, the First Regional Meeting of Judges of the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ) from Latin America and the Caribbean was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with the aim of fostering discussion on the proper and effective implementation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. More information is available here.
On 15 May 2024, the kick-off meeting of the Digital Tokens Project was held online. Under this project, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH, in partnership with relevant subject-matter experts and Observers, is studying the private international law issues relating to digital tokens. More information is available here.
On 17 and 21 May 2024, the first meetings of the Working Groups on the Practical Handbooks and Country Profiles for the 1965 Service and 1970 Convention were held online. More information is available here.
On 29 May 2024, the first meeting of the Working Group established to complete the Country Profile and work on the draft Cooperation Request Recommended Model Form for the 1996 Child Protection Convention was held online. More information is available here.
Calls for Tender
The HCCH recently published a call for tenders for the development of electronic Country Profiles (e-Country Profiles) for a number of key HCCH Conventions. The deadline for the submission of tenders is 27 August 2024 (17:00 CEST). More information is available here.
These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.
Out now: Second Edition of Conflict of Laws and the Internet
Edward Elgar has just published the second edition of Conflict of Laws and the Internet by Pedro De Miguel Asensio.
Prof. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo is appointed president of the Curatorium of the Hague Academy of International Law
This month Prof. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, a renowned expert in Private International Law, has been appointed president of the Curatorium of the Hague Academy of International Law. He succeeded Prof. Yves Daudet. For more information, click here and here.
Prof. Fernández Arroyo is the first Latin American to ever hold that position.
Below is an image circulated by ASADIP. Many congratulations!
