Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria
[2024] EWHC 1503 (Comm)
Louis Emovbira Williams v Federal Government of Nigeria & Anor
19 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3282 (Comm)
High Court
Nigeria tried to overturn a large court judgment against them, arguing they weren't properly served. The judge decided they *were* properly served because they agreed to be served at their London embassy and the case was about a business deal, not a government matter, so Nigeria had to pay.
Key Facts
- •Dr Williams, a Nigerian national resident in the UK, obtained a default judgment in 2018 against the Federal Government of Nigeria for US$6,520,190 plus interest, based on a claim of fraudulent breach of trust dating back to 1986.
- •The Defendants (Federal Government of Nigeria and Attorney General) applied in 2020 to set aside the default judgment.
- •Dr Williams's claim was based on a 1993 presidential decree ('Fidelity Guarantee') promising repayment and, alternatively, on fraudulent breach of trust.
- •A significant issue was whether the claim form and particulars of claim were served in compliance with the State Immunity Act 1978.
- •Dr Williams's solicitor, Mr Ogunbiyi, had previously been on the record for the Defendants.
- •The Defendants argued that service was invalid due to non-compliance with section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 and the lack of service outside the jurisdiction within six months.
- •Dr Williams countered that service complied with section 12(6) due to an agreement with the Nigerian authorities to accept service at the High Commission in London.
Legal Principles
State Immunity Act 1978, sections 1, 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 12(1), 12(6)
State Immunity Act 1978
Service of documents on a foreign state must generally comply with Section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 unless the state has agreed to an alternative method (Section 12(6))
State Immunity Act 1978
CPR 12.3(1) and CPR 13.2(a) govern default judgments and setting them aside.
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
The court considers the circumstances of each case when deciding whether to set aside a default judgment.
Common Law
"Commercial transaction" under section 3(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 is broadly defined. Referencing *Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No. 1) [1995] 1 WLR 1147*
Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No. 1) [1995] 1 WLR 1147
Outcomes
Defendants' application to set aside the default judgment dismissed.
The court found that the Federal Government of Nigeria had agreed to accept service at the High Commission in London, satisfying section 12(6) of the State Immunity Act 1978. The claim fell within the commercial transaction exception to state immunity under section 3(1)(a). The delay in bringing the application was not sufficient grounds for dismissal given the lack of substance to the arguments on jurisdiction.
Dr Williams's cross-application dismissed.
While the Defendants' initial application was issued before their solicitors were on the record, this was deemed ratified. While the delay in bringing the application was significant, it didn't outweigh the lack of merit in the Defendants' case on jurisdiction.
Similar Cases
Zhongshan Fucheng Investment Co Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria
[2023] EWCA Civ 867
Edward v Okeke & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1192 (KB)
Nigerian Agrip Exploitation Limited v GEC Petroleum Development Company Limited
[2023] EWHC 414 (Comm)
The Federal Republic Of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Limited
[2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm)