ESQ Legal Practice Magazine JUNE 2014 EDITION | Page 59

a Court can only grant an
injunction in support of
arbitration if the entire issues
in dispute between the parties
are brought before the Court.
Thus, this school of thought
believes that an action which
is instituted for the sole
purpose of obtaining an
injunctive relief pending the
hearing and determination of
an arbitration is bound to fail
because the Court's
jurisdiction to entertain a suit
can only be invoked when the
entire issues in dispute is
brought before the Court.
The judicial authority, which is
usually brandished in support
of this school of thought is the
case of NV Scheep v. MV S.
Araz (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691)
622 where the Supreme Court
held that a Court would only
be able to grant an interim
measure in support of
arbitration where the issues in
dispute between the parties
have been submitted to the
Court for its determination. In
this case, the Court refused to
grant an interim order for
security in support of an
arbitration proceeding in
London because the Claimant
in the suit had not submitted
the issues in dispute between
the parties for the
determination of the Court.
The Court therefore held that
the admiralty jurisdiction of
the Federal High Court could
not be validly invoked for the
sole purpose of obtaining
security for an award in
respect of the on-going
arbitration in London. In
essence, the Supreme Court
simply ruled that the Claimant
ought to have approached the
59 I EsQ legal practice

arbitral tribunal for an order
for interim relief since the
arbitral tribunal was
responsible for determining
the issues in dispute between
the parties.
The second school of thought
believes that a Court has the
power to grant an order of
injunction pending the
hearing and determination of
an arbitration proceeding.
This school of thought
however believes that the
power to grant injunctions
pending arbitration should
only be exercised in rare and
deserving cases. In Owners of

the MV Lupex v. N.O.C.S Ltd
(2003) 6 S.C. (Pt. II) 62 at 73,
the Supreme Court held that a
party to an arbitral
proceedings would be
permitted to institute an
action for injunctive reliefs in
Court during the pendency of
the arbitral proceedings, if
there is a "strong, compelling
and justifiable reason" for
such an action. This position
was re-affirmed by the Court
of Appeal in Maritime
Academy of Nigeria v. A.Q.S
(2008) All FWLR (Pt. 406) 1872
at 1895 Para B-C.
In Lignes Aeriennes

Congolaises v. Air Atlantic
Nigeria Ltd (2006) 2 NWLR
(Pt. 963) 49 the Court of
Appeal held that the choice of
arbitration does not bar resort
to the Court to obtain security
for any eventual award.
Also, in the recent case of
Statoil Nigeria Limited v. Star
Deep Water Petroleum
Limited & 3 Ors (Suit No.
FHC/L/CS/1452/2013)
(Unreported)2, Honourable
Justice Buba held that the
Federal High Court has the
jurisdiction and power to
grant an order of injunctive
reliefs pending arbitration,

www.esqlaw.net