The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd & Anor

The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd & Anor

The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain Mr Andrew’s appeal because permission to appeal was not obtained from the trial judge as required by section 68(4) Arbitration Act 1996. The findings against Mr Andrew were within the pleaded case, put to him in cross-examination, and he had full opportunity to respond. There was no breach of Articles 6 or 8 ECHR. The process was fair, reasons were adequate, and the findings were justified. Even if jurisdiction existed, permission to appeal would be refused on discretionary grounds.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Federal Republic of Nigeria; Defendant: Process and Industrial Developments Ltd; Additional Appellant: Seamus Ronald Andrew
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal From High Court Decision Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Fraud in Arbitration, Legal Professional Privilege, Procedural Fairness, Human Rights Act, Articles 6 and 8 ECHR, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal, Professional Misconduct
Arbitration Professional Regulation Civil Procedure Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Fraud in Arbitration Legal Professional Privilege Procedural Fairness Human Rights Act +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Federal Republic of Nigeria

Claimant/respondent

Process and Industrial Developments Ltd

Defendant

Seamus Ronald Andrew

Additional Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal From High Court Decision Under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by a non-party against findings made in a section 68 Arbitration Act judgment without permission from the trial judge
  2. 2 Whether the findings against Mr Andrew breached his rights under Articles 6 and/or 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness required further reasons or warnings to Mr Andrew before adverse findings were made

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain Mr Andrew’s appeal because permission to appeal was not obtained from the trial judge as required by section 68(4) Arbitration Act 1996. The findings against Mr Andrew were within the pleaded case, put to him in cross-examination, and he had full opportunity to respond. There was no breach of Articles 6 or 8 ECHR. The process was fair, reasons were adequate, and the findings were justified. Even if jurisdiction existed, permission to appeal would be refused on discretionary grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused.
  • Even if permission had been granted, appeal would have been dismissed.