Award debtors routinely employ every conceivable strategy to circumvent the enforcement of an arbitral award against them. One such strategy is to argue that the time limit for enforcing an award or judgment has lapsed, thus rendering the award unenforceable. As this issue has long plagued award creditors, the relevant statutory provisions and judicial decisions in this regard must be evaluated in order to ascertain the ways in which the unsavoury outcome of the statutes of limitation can be avoided.
The National Identity Management Commission recently issued the Mandatory Use of the National Identification Number Regulations 2017, under which "the filing and registration of criminal and civil actions in courts or other arbitration processes" is now included in the list of transactions that require the use of a national identity number. Although this requirement is legitimate, how it will be enforced in private transactions and the effects of non-compliance on such transactions remain unclear.
The Federal High Court recently dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal's final award on the grounds that the tribunal had misconducted itself by reformulating the issues agreed by the parties to include a preliminary issue which was capable of removing the need to determine all of the issues presented by the parties. The court held that although a jurisdictional error is a variant of misconduct, it is only where a tribunal has acted without jurisdiction that its decision is liable to be set aside.
The Court of Appeal recently held that the Tax Appeal Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate tax-related disputes. The appellants in the case successfully argued that the tribunal's jurisdiction to determine tax disputes does not encroach on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, as bringing tax appeals before the tribunal is merely a condition precedent to approaching the court. Further, the tribunal's decisions can be reviewed and quashed by the court.