Interocean Oil Development Company and Interocean Oil Exploration Company v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/20), Decision on Preliminary Objections (October 29, 2014)
I. THE PARTIES
A. The Claimants
1. The Claimants are Interocean Oil Development Company and Interocean Oil Exploration Company, both of which were incorporated under the laws of Delaware and maintain registered offices at 901 N. Market Street, Suite 705, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, U.S.A.
2. The Claimants are represented in this arbitration by Mr. Olasupo Shasore of Ajumogobia & Okeke, 2nd Floor, Sterling Towers, 20 Marina, Lagos, Nigeria; Prof. Oba Nsugbe of Pump Court Chambers, 3 Pump Court, Temple, London, EC4Y 7AJ, U.K.; Ms. Bimpe Nkontchou of Addie & Co., 44 Maiden Lane, Covent Garden, London WC2E 7LN, U.K.; and Mr. Bello Salihu, 13A, Sinari Daranijo Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria.
B. The Respondent
3. The Respondent is the Federal Republic of Nigeria, with the request for arbitration notified to the Attorney General for the Federation and Minister for Justice, Federal Ministry of Justice, Shehu Shagari Way, Central Area, Abuja, Nigeria.
4. The Respondent is represented in this arbitration by Aare Afe Babalola, Mr. Adebayo Adenipekun, Mr. Olu Daramola, Mr. Oluwasina Ogungbade, Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju, Mr. Ola Faro, and Mrs. Esther Adenipekun, all of Emmanuel Chambers, Emmanuel House, Plot 1 Block 4, CMD/Jubilee Road, Behind Mobil Filling Station, Magodo GRA, Lagos, Nigeria.
I. THE PARTIES................................................................................................................... 1
A. The Claimants............................................................................................................ 1
B. The Respondent ......................................................................................................... 1
II. Overview of the Dispute .................................................................................................... 1
III. Procedural History ............................................................................................................. 3
IV. The Parties’ Positions ........................................................................................................ 8
A. The Respondent’s Position........................................................................................ 8
B. The Claimants’ Position ............................................................................................ 8
V. Key Provisions of Treaty and Statute ................................................................................ 9
VI. Tribunal Analysis............................................................................................................. 11
A. Overview ................................................................................................................. 11
1. Summary Conclusions............................................................................................. 11
2. Characterization of Preliminary Objections ............................................................ 12
B. The Six Preliminary Issues...................................................................................... 12
1. First Objection: Respondent did not consent to submit this dispute to arbitration by ICSID.................................................................................................................. 12
a. The Parties’ Positions...................................................................................... 12
b. Tribunal Conclusion........................................................................................ 13
2. Second Objection: Section 26 of the NIPC Act does not provide a basis for finding consent on the part of Respondent as it merely provides that disputes should be conducted in accordance with the ICSID Rules...................................... 15
a. The Parties’ Positions...................................................................................... 15
b. Tribunal Conclusion........................................................................................ 16
3. Third Objection: the Claimants are not registered with the NIPC and therefore cannot rely on Section 26(3) of the NIPC Act to invoke the jurisdiction of ICSID, and the Claimants misled the Secretariat of ICSID to register their Request for Arbitration when they falsely claimed that their enterprise was registered with the NIPC ......................................................................................... 18
a. The Parties’ Positions...................................................................................... 18
b. Tribunal Conclusion........................................................................................ 21
4. Fourth Objection: the Respondent is not a competent party to this arbitration....... 22
a. The Parties’ Positions...................................................................................... 22
b. Tribunal Conclusion........................................................................................ 24
5. Fifth Objection: Claimants’ claims are barred by statute........................................ 25
a. The Parties’ Positions...................................................................................... 25
b. Tribunal Conclusion........................................................................................ 26
6. Sixth Objection: The request is premature in that the Claimants failed to explore local remedies/conditions precedent contained in the NIPC Act ............................ 27
a. The Parties’ Positions...................................................................................... 27
b. Tribunal Conclusion........................................................................................ 29
VII. Decision ........................................................................................................................... 31