An Analysis of the Key Innovations of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure 2023

CONTRIBUTED BY IFEDIORA OBIORA .C

INTRODUCTION:

The fact is ubiquitous that the maritime sector is recognized as the lifeblood of the global economy, connecting nations and facilitating international trade.^[1] The Maritime sector contributes significantly to Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), serving as a catalyst for employment generation and foreign exchange earnings.^[2]

Nigeria’s legal system strives to create an effective legal framework for the efficient operation of the maritime industry. Suffice it to say that the Nigerian Maritime law draws inspiration from international conventions and laws, domestic statutes, case laws, customary international laws and the principles of maritime.^[3] The Nigerian government realizing the potential of the Maritime sector in contributing to Nigeria’s GDP created the Ministry for the Blue Economy. The blue economy which cuts across the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, has the potential to revolutionize Nigeria’s maritime industry and produce a significant boost to the country’s economy.^[4]

To enhance the legal practice and in order to streamline and expedite the resolution of admiralty issues in Nigeria, while also ensuring that all parties involved have a fair opportunity to present their cases, the Chief Judge (CJ) of the Federal High Court on May 18, 2023, ‘enacted’ the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules (AJPR) 2023.^[5] The new Rules repealed the AJPR 2011, to ensure the promotion of Admiralty Practice and Procedure at the Federal High Court in line with global best practices. The CJ was empowered by the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act^[6] to make the Rules in order to match up with the current needs of admiralty issues in Nigeria.

The AJPR 2023 has certain innovations which are well considered as improvements to aid the practice of Admiralty Law in Nigeria. The provisions of the Rules reflecting these innovations shall be adequately considered in the body of this work.

THE KEY INNOVATIONS OF THE AJPR 2023:

1. The Provision for the Establishment of Admiralty Divisions and the Designation of Admiralty Judges:

Formally, under the AJPR 2011, the Rules merely provide that the CJ may issue directions to establish the Admiralty Registry for the Court^[7] and designate the Divisions of the Court where the Registry shall be located.^[8] However, with the enactment of the AJPR 2023, the CJ is now mandated to establish Admiralty Divisions for the Court^[9] and designate judges as Admiralty Judges.^[10] This is a welcomed development as it allows for specialization and expertise in handling special cases in maritime law. The merit of this provision is that where the CJ establishes an Admiralty Division, judges who are considered experts in issues involving admiralty matters can handle these cases. It also promotes the expedited determination of matters pertaining to admiralty claims.

1. Validity of Warrant of Arrest Notwithstanding Transfer of Action:

Formally, on the issue of the place of instituting an action, the AJPR 2011 made a provision that an action in rem may be commenced in the Judicial Division of the Court in which the res may be found or is expected to arrive.^[11] It further provided that where a suit is commenced in any other Judicial Division of the court than that which it ought to have been commenced, it may, notwithstanding, be tried in the Judicial Division in which it has been commenced, unless the court otherwise directs or the defendant pleads specifically in objection to the jurisdiction.^[12]

Retaining the above provision, the AJPR 2023 further provided that even where an admiralty action is not commenced in the Judicial Division of the Court in which the res may be found or is expected to arrive and the action is subsequently transferred to the appropriate jurisdiction, such transfer of action does not affect the validity of any warrant of arrest made by the original court.^[13] The Rules provide that any warrant of arrest issued by the Court in the previous Judicial Division shall remain in force and be enforceable against the res in any Judicial Division in which it is located.

1. List of Documents to be Filed Alongside Statement of Claim in an Action Filed by Writ of Summons:

For the commencement of an action in rem, the AJPR 2023 provides that it shall be commenced by a writ of summons which shall be accompanied by a statement of claim, a list of documents to be relied on at trial, a list of non-documentary exhibits and list of witnesses to be called at trial.^[14] This provision expanded the former provision of the Rules which only provided that an action in rem commenced by a writ of summons shall be accompanied by a statement of claim and list of every document to be relied on at trial.^[15] This provision is important as it spells out the necessary documents to be frontloaded before the court.

1. Notarization of Witnesses Statement on Oath of Witnesses Outside Jurisdiction and Introduction of Written Statement on Oath of Subpoenaed Witnesses:

In the repealed AJPR, the Rules only provided that a plaintiff shall within 7 days of filing the summons, file written statements of his witnesses which shall be adopted on oath at trial.^[16] However, the new Rules came up with a provision to the effect that witness statements on oath of witnesses who are outside the jurisdiction of Nigeria may be notarized by a notary public in the foreign jurisdiction.^[17] This will curb hindrances in getting the written depositions of witnesses who are outside the jurisdiction of Nigeria.

Furthermore, the new Rules made a new provision that statement on oath of witnesses requiring a subpoena from the court need not be filed at the commencement of the action.^[18] It also provided that witnesses who require a subpoena or summons shall at the instance of the party calling them be served with Form 3 (the document directing the subpoenaed witness to reduce their oath in writing and deliver it to the party subpoenaing the witness) before the filing of the statements of such witness.^[19]

1. Specification of Parties in an Action in Rem:

In the former Rules, it was provided that the writ of summons in a proceeding commencing as an action in rem shall specify a relevant person in relation to the maritime claim concerned as a defendant.^[20] However, the new Rules provide that a proceeding commenced as an action in rem in relation to a proprietary maritime claim shall specify the ship or other property as the defendant and the plaintiff shall not be required to specify a relevant person as a defendant.^[21] This entails that where an action in rem is commenced with respect to a proprietary maritime claim, the claimant need not specify the name of a natural person as a defendant but may only specify the name of the ship or property. It is pertinent to note that this only relates to action in rem in respect of a proprietary maritime claim and not a general maritime claim. In other words, where it pertains to a general maritime claim, the name of a relevant person must be specified in addition to the ship or property.^[22]

1. Introduction of Physical Service and Recognition of Service by Email

Address:

The new Rules mandated that the service of a writ of summons, a court order of arrest and a warrant of arrest in an action in rem should be effected by physical service.^[23] In addition to this, the Rules magnanimously allowed for the service of other processes on the defendant through the known email address of the defendant or through his counsel, where the defendant is represented by a counsel in the action.^[24] The advantage of this is that it can expedite legal proceedings by facilitating a faster service of processes between the parties, potentially reducing delays and costs. It also improves accessibility and convenience between the parties especially where physical service of processes may be time-consuming.

1. E-Filing for Application of Warrant of Arrest of Ship:

The Rules provide that a proceeding commenced as an action in rem may by a motion ex parte apply for a warrant of arrest in respect of the ship or other property against which the proceeding was commenced, provided that the ship or other property is within Nigerian territorial waters or is expected to arrive within three days, at the time of filing the application.^[25] The Rules further provide that the ex parte application may be filed physically at the Admiralty Registry or by e-filing at the Admiralty E-filing Unit.^[26] Such e-filing shall be sent to the email address provided by the Admiralty Marshall in Portable Document Format (PDF).^[27]

1. Arrest of Ship within Jurisdiction Notwithstanding the Absence of Substantive Suit against the Ship within the Jurisdiction or the Presence of an Arbitration Proceeding within or outside Nigeria:

The arrest of a ship entails the detention of a ship or other property by judicial process to secure a maritime claim, but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgement.^[28] Formally, the AJPR 2011 made provisions for the arrest of a ship. The ship must be within Nigerian territorial waters or is expected to arrive there within three days.^[29] In furtherance, a substantive claim must be made against the ship in Nigeria, for the validity of the warrant of arrest. This entails that for a warrant of arrest of a ship to be granted by the court, there must have been a substantive claim filed in Nigeria, about the ship. In other words, it prevented claimants from making applications for warrant of arrest of ships within the jurisdiction of Nigeria, where a substantive claim was instituted against the ship in a foreign court; or where an arbitration proceeding was instituted against the ship within or outside Nigeria. The Supreme Court in NV Scheep v MV “S.Araz”^[30] held that the Federal High Court could not order the arrest of a ship for the purpose of obtaining security in respect of an arbitration proceeding in London as the substantive matter giving rise to the demand for security was not before the court. This was because no law as at then vested authority on the court to do so.

However, a laudable provision was made in the AJPR 2023 to cure this defect. The CJ extended the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to grant the application for the arrest of a ship where the substantive claim is not before a court of competent jurisdiction in Nigeria. The Rules provide that where an application is for a warrant of arrest of a ship or other property in respect of a claim commenced in a court outside Nigeria or commenced by way of arbitration proceedings within or outside Nigeria, such an application can be made without commencing an action before the court for the substantive claim.^[31] Importantly, it must be noted that the application for a warrant of arrest must be supported with the original or certified true copy of the court or arbitration process in relation to the foreign case or the arbitration proceedings commenced within or outside Nigeria.^[32]

CONCLUSION:

In summary, the AJPR 2023 represents a significant stride in modernizing maritime law and streamlining legal processes within admiralty jurisdiction. It must be noted that this work did not exhaust the whole innovations of the AJPR 2023 but pinpointed several vital innovations of the Rules. The repealed Rules have been placed side by side with the new Rules and it can be said from the study that laudable developments and improvements were made regarding the Rules, by the CJ of the Federal High Court.

By embracing technological advancements, enhancing procedural efficiency and addressing contemporary challenges, these innovations aims to facilitate smoother resolution of maritime disputes and promote the rule of law in the ever-evolving maritime industry. As we move forward, it is imperative to continue adapting and refining these procedures to ensure they remain effective and equitable in addressing the complexities of maritime commerce and navigation.

1. Stren & Blan Partners, ‘An Examination of the Novel Provisions of Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules, 2023’ <https://strenandblan.com/2024/01/15/an-examination-of-the-novel-provisions-of-admiralty-jurisdiction-procedure-rules-2023/#:~:text=ORGINATING%20PROCESS%20FOR%20AN%20APPLICATION,any%20maritime%20claim%20in%20any> accessed 15^th February, 2024. ↑
2. Abdulhaleem A., ‘Impact of Nigerian Maritime Law on Trade, Commerce, and Economy’, <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impact-nigerian-maritime-law-trade-commerce-economy-abdulhaleem?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via> accessed 15^th February, 2024. ↑
3. Ibid. ↑
4. GOG Marine, ‘Nigeria and the New Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy’ <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nigeria-new-ministry-marine-blue-economy-gog-marinelimited-ahigf> accessed 15^th February, 2024. ↑
5. Ozuo I., ‘Arrest of Ship in Nigeria and the 2023 Admiralty rules’, <https://guardian.ng/opinion/arrest-of-ship-in-nigeria-and-the-2023-admiralty-rules/#:~:text=Federal%20High%20Court.-,On%20May%2018%2C%202023%2C%20the%20Chief%20Judge%20of%20the%20Federal,ship%20arrest%20practice%20in%20Nigeria> accessed 15^th Febru1ry, 2024. ↑
6. Admiralty Jurisdiction Act Cap A 5 LFN 2004, s 21. ↑
7. Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2011, Order 23 Rule 1. ↑
8. AJPR 2011, Order 23 Rule 3. ↑
9. Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2023, Order 2 Rule 1. ↑
10. AJPR 2023, Order 2 Rule 2. ↑
11. AJPR 2011, Order 2 Rule 1. ↑
12. AJPR 2011, Order 2 Rule 3. ↑
13. AJPR 2023, Order 2 Rule 9 ↑
14. AJPR 2023, Order 3 Rule 3(1). ↑
15. AJPR 2011, Order 3 Rule 3(1). ↑
16. AJPR 2011, Order 3 Rule 3(2). ↑
17. AJPR 2023, Order 3 Rule 3(2)(a). ↑
18. AJPR 2023, Order 3 Rule 3(2)(b). ↑
19. AJPR 2023, Order 3 Rule 3(2)c). ↑
20. AJPR 2011, Order 5 Rule 1. ↑
21. AJPR 2023, Order 5 Rule 1. ↑
22. AJPR 2023, Order 5 Rule 2(1). ↑
23. AJPR 2023, Order 6 Rule 3(1). ↑
24. AJPR 2023, Order 6 Rule 3(2). ↑
25. AJPR 2023, Order 7 Rule 1(1). ↑
26. AJPR 2023, Order 7 Rule 1(2). ↑
27. AJPR 2023, Oder 7 Rule 1 (3). ↑
28. AJPR 2023, Order 22 Rule 2. ↑
29. AJPR 2011, Order 7 Rule 1. ↑
30. (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt 691) 622. ↑
31. AJPR 2023, Order 7 Rule 8(1). ↑
32. AJPR 2023, Order 7 Rule 8(2). ↑