Ogelegbanwei & 52 Ors v President of the Federal Republic of Republic of Nigeria & Ors

A foreign judgment may be registered under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 where the statutory conditions are satisfied and it is just and convenient to enforce it in the United Kingdom. The court may extend the statutory 12-month period where assurances of payment reasonably caused delay and no unfair prejudice is shown.

State immunity remains applicable to proceedings concerning damage caused outside the United Kingdom. Section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 is confined to injuries or property damage caused by acts or omissions in the United Kingdom. It cannot be read down to cover foreign human-rights violations. A declaration of incompatibility would not alter the legislation’s validity or enforcement, and EU-law disapplication was unavailable.

The claimants obtained a substantial damages judgment against Nigerian state officials in the Federal High Court of Nigeria. The judgment remained unpaid, and the claimants sought registration in England so that it could be enforced against assets believed to be situated here.

The application was initially made under section 2 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. The claimants amended it to rely on section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 after accepting that no Order in Council extended the 1933 Act to Nigeria. The central issues were whether the late application could proceed, whether the judgment should be registered against the third defendant, and whether state immunity barred registration against the first and second defendants.

1. The court permitted the application to proceed under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920. Nigeria fell within the territorial scope of that Act, and none of the statutory exclusions applied. Although the application was outside the 12-month period in section 9(1), the court extended time because assurances of payment had caused the claimants to defer enforcement. In the circumstances, allowing the extension caused no unfair prejudice to the defendants.

2. Registration against the third defendant was ordered. No state-immunity issue arose in his case. He had been held jointly and severally liable in Nigeria, had not participated in those proceedings, had not paid the judgment debt, and was believed to have assets in England. It was just and convenient that the judgment against him should be enforced.

3. Sections 1 and 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 barred registration against the first and second defendants. Section 1 reflected the international-law principle that one state does not exercise jurisdiction over another. Section 5 created an exception for death, personal injury, or tangible property damage caused by acts or omissions in the United Kingdom. The exception did not extend to acts occurring wholly in Nigeria.

4. The court declined to read section 5 down so as to remove immunity for foreign acts amounting to human-rights violations. Its wording was plain and formed part of the balance struck by Parliament. A declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 would not affect the validity, continuing operation, or enforcement of the immunity provisions. Nor could those provisions be disapplied under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, because the relevant provisions of the 1920 Act did not fall within the scope of EU law.

5. The application to register the Nigerian judgment against the first and second defendants was refused. Registration against the third defendant was confirmed.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.