Power market coupling: towards harmonised electricity policies in the East African Community

The ambitious plans of the East African Community (EAC) to provide adequate electricity in the region have continued to generate substantial interest among experts in academia, industry and government. The communal efforts to realise such targets are predicated on individual capacities and cooperative endeavour. This article focuses on a legal assessment of the EAC energy market coupling with a special emphasis on examining whether a harmonised approach is possible from two perspectives: first, practical industry concerns and, second, the legal framework within which those concerns should be addressed. This article argues that there is strong potential for a harmonised approach supported by legal convergence. One important index of success in this area would be the promotion and protection of foreign investment to ensure enough electricity supply

Judicial Intervention in Arbitration: Unresolved Jurisdictional Issues Concerning Arbitrator Appointments in Nigeria

Parties find it difficult to determine which Nigerian High Court should intervene in the appointment of arbitrators due to conflicting judicial precedents. This perennial challenge has defied any legal solution. Considering relevant case law, this article examines the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) vis-à-vis the Nigerian Constitution. The main argument is that the Nigerian Constitution read alongside the ACA confers the Federal High Court with additional jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators regardless of which court has jurisdiction concerning the underlying dispute. There are also uncertainties regarding the intervention jurisdiction of Nigeria's National Industrial Court to appoint arbitrators. Currently, no other court can exercise intervention jurisdiction in employment disputes. This article analyses recent decisions of the National Industrial Court and argues that this Court can only intervene to appoint arbitrators where both parties request the appointment in a pending action before the Court. It is also argued that decisions concerning the appointment of arbitrators through judicial intervention can be appealed

English Worldwide Freezing Orders in Europe

A judgment creditor who obtains a freezing order in one EU Member State may seek to enforce it in another Member State. When judgment creditors seek to enforce such orders, the judgment debtors may appeal against the enforcement orders. This article examines how protective measures can be guaranteed pending such enforcement appeals under the Brussels legal regime. Relevant legal provisions and the case law of the Court of Justice are considered. There is also an examination of the recent English response to the Brussels legal regime and an argument that the judgment creditor is entitled to protective measures. Drawing support from public policy and mutual trust considerations, this article concludes that exercising judicial discretion in granting protective measures pending appeals undermines legal certainty

The fragmentation of (mutual) trust in Commonwealth Africa - a foreign judgments perspective

Mutual trust plays an important role in facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments also reflects some degree of mutual trust, although not explicitly. Commonwealth African countries seem to be influenced by mutual trust but have not yet adopted any coherent approach in the conflict of laws. This incoherence has impeded the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments especially in Africa. This article seeks to understand the principle of mutual trust in its EU context and then compare it with the subtle application of mutual trust in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Commonwealth Africa. The article illustrates this subtle and rather unarticulated application of mutual trust primarily through decided cases and relevant statutory provisions in the Commonwealth African jurisdictions considered. The article then considers how the subtle application of mutual trust has sometimes resulted in parallel efforts to promote the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and how a proliferation of legal regimes can undermine legal clarity, certainty and predictability. A progressive application of mutual trust will help to ensure African countries maximise the benefits of a global framework on foreign judgments

Book Review: International Telecommunications Law and Policy

International Telecommunications Law and Polic

Jurisdictional conflicts and individual liberty – the encroaching burden of technicality in Nigeria

There is a long history of struggles to enforce fundamental rights in Nigeria. The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules reflect flexibility and promote access to the courts. For example, applicants can apply to enforce their rights in either a State High Court or Federal High Court which are both superior courts of first instance. This position is supported by at least two landmark Supreme Court decisions: Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd and Jack v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi. Some appellate decisions indicate that the option to enforce fundamental rights in either the State High Courts or the Federal High Court must be interpreted with reference to the subject matter dichotomy between both courts. The lack of clarity is illustrated by a recent and important case, NDLEA v. Omidina, where the Court of Appeal asserted this dichotomy at the expense of an applicant’s liberty. This article examines relevant cases and contends that the jurisdictional technicalities inherent in such dichotomy are neither justified nor viable. This article thus concludes that the subject matter jurisdiction dichotomy, as applied by the Court of Appeal, undermines the enforcement of fundamental rights and fails to promote clarity