depends on the issuance of a ministerial order under section 3 (an order yet to be made) extending its application to specified foreign countries. In the absence of such a ministerial order, the intended statutory regime remains largely inchoate to date.
In light of the limitations of the statutory regime, common law principles continue to play a central role in the enforcement of foreign judgments in Nigeria. 7 They effectively fill the gap left by the inoperative aspects of the statutory framework and remain the most commonly used route in practice. This position was affirmed in Macaulay v RZB of Austria, where the Supreme Court recognised the continued relevance of the common law enforcement regime alongside statutory mechanisms.

3. Modes of Enforcing Foreign Judgments

Foreign judgments may be enforced in Nigeria through two main routes: by an action at common law or through reciprocal enforcement under statute.

(i) Enforcement by Action at Common Law

Under the common law route, a judgment obtained in a foreign jurisdiction is enforced by commencing a fresh action before a Nigerian High Court, with the judgment itself forming the basis of the claim. The High Court does not rehear the original dispute or sit on appeal over the foreign court’s decision; rather, it determines whether the judgment meets the conditions for enforcement.

This method is generally limited to decisions delivered by superior courts of competent jurisdiction. In practice, Nigerian courts insist that the foreign court must possess a status comparable to, or higher than, that of a Nigerian High Court. Additionally, the judgment must be final and conclusive and must be for a definite sum. The Supreme Court alluded to these requirements in Marine & General Assurance Co Plc v Overseas Union Insurance Ltd.

A notable advantage of this mode of enforcement is that it does not depend on reciprocity. A foreign judgment may therefore be recognised and enforced in Nigeria even if Nigerian judgments would not receive similar treatment in the originating jurisdiction. It should be noted, however, that not all foreign judgments are enforceable using this route. Where a judgment falls within the scope of Part 1 of the 1961 Act, an action at common law may be excluded.

(ii) Enforcement by Reciprocal Registration (Statutory Mode)

The statutory route, regulated by the 1958 Ordinance and the Foreign Judgment Enforcement Act, allows foreign judgments originating from countries that accord reciprocal treatment to Nigerian judgments to be registered in Nigerian Courts, provided they meet the statutory requirements. Once registered, such judgments are treated as if they were delivered by Nigerian courts and become enforceable by the same execution processes applicable to domestic judgments.

In theory, this provides a more straightforward mechanism for enforcement. In practice, however, the absence of a ministerial order as required by section 3 has significantly limited the effectiveness of this regime. Despite this, Nigerian courts have continued to recognise and enforce foreign judgments from certain jurisdictions by virtue of the existing 1958 Ordinance.

The Supreme Court in Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v Ghassan Halaoui clarified that, in the interim, the 1958 Ordinance continues to regulate the enforcement of foreign judgments in Nigeria.

4. Requirements for Registration and Enforcement

(i) Enforcement by Reciprocal Registration (Statutory Mode)

Having broadly set out the legal framework and the methods of enforcing foreign judgments in Nigeria, this discussion now focuses on the registration route in some detail, as it presents the most problems in practice. As earlier established, once a foreign judgment is registered in Nigeria, it assumes the same force and effect as a judgment delivered by a Nigerian court and may be enforced through the usual execution processes. However, the courts have consistently held that for a foreign judgment to be registered and enforced in Nigeria, the following requirements must be satisfied:

1. The judgment must be final and conclusive. In other words, interim or interlocutory and default judgments that do not completely determine the rights and liabilities of the parties are not registrable. Nonetheless, a foreign judgment is deemed final and conclusive, even if an appeal is pending against it or it may still be subject to appeal in the foreign jurisdiction.
2. It must be delivered by a superior court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The judgment debtor must have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
4. The judgment must be for a definite sum of money, and must not relate to taxes, fines, or penalties. The foreign judgment must be a monetary judgment.
5. The sum payable under the judgment must be expressed in naira. The law mandates the required foreign judgment sum to be converted to naira at the current exchange rate on the date the judgment was given. If part of the original judgment sum has already been satisfied at the date of the application for registration, the balance of the judgment sum due only will be registered and not the whole sum. It should be noted, however, that Nigerian courts have the authority to register foreign judgments expressed in foreign currency, as section 4 (3) of the 1961 Act has not been operationalised.

(ii) Non-Registrable Judgments

Even though Nigerian law allows foreign judgments to be recognised and enforced domestically, it is necessary to emphasise that the law also delineates certain categories of judgments that are ineligible for registration and sets out the grounds on which registration may be challenged and set aside. In that regard, Nigerian courts will usually not register and enforce the following types of foreign judgments:

• Criminal, penal, and tax judgments;
• Declaratory and Interlocutory judgments;
• Wholly satisfied judgments
• Judgments obtained without jurisdiction or procured by fraud;
• Judgments contrary to public policy;
• Judgments for unliquidated or uncertain sums; and
• Judgments incapable of enforcement by execution in the country of the original court.

(iii) Grounds for Setting Aside Registration

When a foreign judgment has been registered, the registration is not immutable. Notwithstanding such registration, it may still be challenged and, in appropriate circumstances, set aside.

An application to set aside the registration is commenced by way of a petition under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Rules. The grounds upon which this may be done include the following:

• where it is established that Part I of the 1961 Act does not apply to the judgment;
• where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction;
• where the judgment debtor was given proper notice with respect to that case in sufficient time to enable him to defend the suit and failed to record appearance;
• where the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• where enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy; and
• where the enforcement rights under the judgment do not rest with the person who registered the judgment.

However, it is worth noting that where the registration of a foreign judgment is set aside, this does not prevent a fresh application for its registration to be made if the conditions for registration and enforcement are subsequently satisfied.

5. Procedure for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

The starting point in any enforcement process is to determine whether the foreign judgment falls within the scope of Part I of the 1961 Act. Where the judgment falls within the ambit of the Act, a judgment creditor may apply to a Nigerian High Court for registration within six (6) years from the date of the judgment. However, in the absence of a ministerial order activating section 3 of the Act, the applicable timeframe in practice remains the twelve-month period prescribed under the 1958 Ordinance, subject to extension by the court. This position was clarified by the Supreme Court in Marine & General Assurance Co Plc v Overseas Union Insurance Ltd. Thus, in Vab Petroleum Inc v Mr. Mike Momah, the registering court registered an English judgment under section 4 of the 1961 Act twenty-five months after the judgment had been delivered. The Supreme Court set aside the registration, affirming that foreign judgments may only be registered within twelve months as provided by the 1958 Ordinance and, provisionally, section 10(a) of the 1961 Act for other countries.

Proceedings for the registration of a foreign judgment are typically commenced by an originating motion, often made ex parte. It is useful to note, however, that under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Rules made pursuant to the 1958 Ordinance, such applications may be brought either ex parte or on notice; nevertheless, the court retains the discretion to require that the respondent be put on notice, notwithstanding the ex parte nature of the application.

The application must be supported by an affidavit setting out the material facts, including a statement that, to the best of the deponent’s knowledge and belief, the judgment creditor is entitled to enforce the judgment, and must exhibit a duly certified copy of the judgment.

In contrast, the 1961 Act does not prescribe any specific procedure for applying to register a judgment. Section 5(b) merely empowers a High Court to make rules prescribing the matters to be proved and the mode of proof. No such rules have been made to date. Consequently, the prevailing practice remains the commencement of such applications by exparte originating motion.

Once registered, the judgment takes effect as if it were a judgment of the registering court and may be enforced accordingly.

Where the statutory route is unavailable, or a foreign judgment cannot be registered under the 1961 Act, the judgment creditor may resort to the common law by commencing a fresh suit before a Nigerian High Court by way of a writ of summons. In such circumstances, the foreign judgment constitutes the cause of action, and the judgment creditor, as Claimant, pleads the foreign judgment as a debt. If the court is satisfied that judgment is final, for a definite sum, and delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it will be recognised and enforced as a judgment of that court.

The timeframe for bringing a common law action to enforce (i.e., recognise) a foreign judgment is governed not by the foreign judgment statutes, but by the statute of limitation applicable to debt claims. This is because, at common law, a foreign judgment is treated as a simple contract debt.

Consequently, subject to the provisions of the various States’ limitation laws, the applicable limitation period is usually five (5) years from the date the judgment became enforceable.

Importantly, time begins to run from the date the foreign judgment is delivered, rather than from when enforcement proceedings are commenced in Nigeria, since the judgment gives rise to an immediate debt obligation actionable in Nigeria. However, where the judgment is subject to appeal in the foreign jurisdiction, Nigerian courts may consider whether it has attained finality in the court of origin as a condition for recognition and enforcement.

6. Concluding Thoughts

The enforcement of foreign judgments in Nigeria remains an area of law characterised by doctrinal complexity and practical inefficiency. The coexistence of the 1958 Ordinance and the 1961 Act, alongside the continued relevance of common law principles, has produced a fragmented legal regime that is both uncertain and outdated. Rather than providing clarity and predictability, the dual system encourages procedural manoeuvring and inconsistent judicial outcomes.

Judicial decisions such as Macaulay v R.Z.B of Austria and Alfred C Toepfer Inc v Edokpolor illustrate the courts’ attempts to navigate this complexity, yet they also highlight the absence of a coherent and unified approach. The persistence of reciprocity as a central requirement, despite limited implementation mechanisms, further constrains the effectiveness of the statutory regime and undermines Nigeria’s attractiveness as a destination for international business.

In light of these challenges, there is a pressing need for legislative reform. Nigeria must move towards a single, harmonised legal framework that eliminates statutory overlaps, clarifies procedural pathways, and aligns with international standards for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Such reform would not only enhance legal certainty but also strengthen Nigeria’s position within the global economic order. Until these reforms are undertaken, the enforcement of foreign judgments in Nigeria will remain burdened by the very complexities it seeks to resolve.