Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

P&ID v. Nigeria, Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection, October 3, 2013

3 Oct 2013
Process and Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID) v. Nigeria Ministry of Petroleum Resources
Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Notice of Preliminary Objection submitted on behalf of the Respondent, the Ministry of Petroleum Resources of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in an ad hoc arbitration proceeding governed by the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The objection formally challenges the tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by the Claimant, Process and Industrial Developments Limited.

Respondent's Legal Positions

The Respondent advances two primary arguments to contest the tribunal's jurisdiction. First, it asserts that the underlying contract, dated 11 January 2010, is void ab initio under Nigerian law for want of legal capacity. Relying on domestic jurisprudence, the Respondent argues that a government ministry is not a juristic person and therefore lacks the requisite legal capacity to enter into a binding contract. Second, the Respondent contends that the Claimant, a British Virgin Islands entity, failed to comply with Section 54 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA). This statutory provision strictly prohibits foreign entities from carrying on business in Nigeria without obtaining separate local incorporation, rendering any acts in contravention of this requirement void and unenforceable.

Relief Sought

Based on these vitiating elements, the Respondent submits that the doctrine of separability does not apply to salvage the arbitration agreement. It requests that the tribunal issue an award declaring the contract void under Nigerian law and dismissing the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, on the basis that the arbitration agreement itself is predicated upon a void and unenforceable contract.