Future oil supplies

Olorunfemi, Michael A.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0076.1990.tb00379.x

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 It has been argued that Section 5 applies only to an action brought by a party to an arbitration agreement in respect of any matter, which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, and that unlike section 4, the application under section 5 is limited in scope since a party can invoke it to an arbitration agreement only against an action instituted by another party to the arbitration agreement. 16 It has been observed that the wide meaning ascribed to "taking steps in the proceedings" and the two conditions prescribed under section 5 (2) can put spanners in the wheel of an application for a stay, which can only be granted at the discretion of the court. 17 There has been a legion of judicial authorities suggestive of the fact that the grant of a stay is discretionary in all cases.…”

Section: Deconstructing the Compass Of Section 4 And 5 Of The Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The word "shall" in section 4 (1) is traditionally mandatory. 51 Is it then a matter of "must" such that when the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the court would still grant the order? 52 Our response to this is that under the principle of separability, the court is expected to stay proceedings to allow the arbitral tribunal determine whether the arbitration agreement is actually null and void, in deference with the age-long principle of competence-competence.…”

Section: Divergent Perspectives On the Existence Of Sections 4 And 5 mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stay of proceedings pending arbitartion: protecting the interests of third-parties to arbitartion in Nigeria

Alatise¹

2018

J. Sustain Dev Law Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Courts have the power to stay proceedings pending arbitration. In Nigeria, the enabling statute regulating commercial arbitration is the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1988. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act contain two similar but conflicting provisions regulating the stay of proceedings. These sections of the law are a product of a common ground found in two different legislative texts. While section 4 leveraged on the provision of Uncitral Model Law on Arbitration, section 5 is influenced by Arbitration Act of 1914. This dichotomy between the histories of the two sections partly accounts for the controversies and difficulties in the interpretation and application by courts and scholars. This article examines the scope of sections 4 and 5 of the Act by identifying the real object of the law and the flaws in its current interpretation. The article considers the American experience, especially, the attitude of courts in granting a stay of proceedings and whether a stay can be granted in a suit against a non-party to the arbitration agreement. Unlike arbitration laws in the United States, one key gap in Nigerian arbitration law is its failure to contemplate stay of proceedings in a suit against a non-party to an arbitration agreement. In addition to identifying the need for urgent legal reforms that accommodate third-party stay pending arbitration, this article recommends that Nigerian courts, like their counterparts in developed jurisdictions, should adopt a more proactive approach by evolving innovative ways in deciding suits involving third parties to arbitration agreement and stay proceedings pending arbitration in appropriate cases to prevent parties from avoiding arbitration by suing a third-party, in line with the global best practices.

show abstract

Section: Deconstructing the Compass Of Section 4 And 5 Of The Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Divergent Perspectives On the Existence Of Sections 4 And 5 mentioning

confidence: 99%