Ruling by Hon. Justice Alexander Oluseyi Owoeye of the Lagos Federal High Court between Bayshore Technologies Ltd vs Green Fuels Ltd (10.05.2025)

This document is a Ruling delivered by Honourable Justice Alexander Oluseyi Owoeye of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division, on Thursday, April 10, 2025, in the suit between Bayshore Technologies Limited (Applicant) and Green Fuels Limited (Respondent). The Applicant sought to set aside part of Procedural Order No. 8, which embodied an Interim Award by the Arbitral Tribunal, declining the Applicant’s request for document production by the Respondent.

Key details and findings:

• Suit and Parties: Bayshore Technologies Limited (Applicant) vs. Green Fuels Limited (Respondent), Suit No: FHC/L/CS/377/2025.
• Arbitral Tribunal: Coram Mrs. Funke Adekoya, SAN (Presiding Arbitrator), Mr. Adeniji Kazeem, SAN (Co-Arbitrator), and Mr. Babajide Ogundipe, FCIArb (Co-Arbitrator).
• Date of Interim Award: February 15, 2025.
• Applicant’s Argument: The Arbitral Tribunal’s refusal to grant the document request denied the Applicant the ability to effectively present its case and breached its fundamental right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 30 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act (AMA) 2023.
• Respondent’s Preliminary Objection: The Court lacked jurisdiction because:
  1. Challenging procedural orders is not listed as an ‘arbitration claim’ under Rule 1 of the Arbitration Proceedings Rules 2020.
  2. The underlying dispute is a simple contract matter (breach of Compressed Natural Gas Sales and Purchase Agreement) over which the Federal High Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Court’s Decision on Jurisdiction: The Court discountenanced the preliminary objection, holding that:
  1. The Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction over arbitration claims with the State High Court and FCT High Court, as per Section 91 of the AMA 2023.
  2.  The application borders on a fair hearing, a question of law arising in the proceedings, which the Court can determine. The Court was not called upon to interfere with the substance of the contractual dispute.
• Court’s Decision on Merit (Sole Issue): The Court resolved the issue in favour of the Applicant, holding that the Arbitral Tribunal’s refusal of documents violated the principle of equal treatment of parties and fair hearing under Section 30(a) of the AMA 2023 and Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
• Orders Granted: The Court set aside the part of Procedural Order No. 8 and ordered the Respondent to produce the following documents within seven days:
  1. Waybills for the supply of gas by the Respondent.
  2. Monthly invoices submitted by the Respondent to the Claimant.
  3. Calibration Certificate for the PRMS Meter.
  4. Configuration Documents for the Installation of the PRMS Meter.
  5. Internal Invoice and Documents showing the verification Mechanism for all Invoice Claims by the Respondent.