OAL | Leading Law Firm in Nigeria

Blog

  • Legal Blackout: What Occurs When A Professional Negligence Case Slips Through Regulatory Gaps in Nigeria?

    Legal Blackout: What Occurs When A Professional Negligence Case Slips Through Regulatory Gaps in Nigeria?

    INTRODUCTION

    In any society, professionals like doctors, lawyers, engineers, and accountants play crucial roles in shaping lives and communities. With that influence comes a responsibility, such as accountability, which is non-negotiable. In Nigeria, as in many other countries, there are laws and regulatory bodies meant to uphold professional standards and protect the public. Yet, the reality on the ground tells a different story. Too often, cases of professional negligence slip through the cracks and get lost in a maze of legal grey areas, weak enforcement, and institutional sluggishness. These situations, often described as a “legal blackout,” leave victims with no path to justice and professionals free from consequences. It’s more than just a legal failure; it’s a deep betrayal of public trust and a sign of a system in urgent need of reform.

    UNDERSTANDING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE IN NIGERIA

    Professional negligence, commonly known as “malpractice,” arises when a professional’s action falls short of the established standards within their field, resulting in harm to a client. This failure to uphold their professional duty constitutes malpractice. Such negligence typically occurs when a professional does not fulfil their responsibilities to the expected standard. Professionals who may be liable for this include doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and IT specialists[1].

    Professional negligence occurs when a professional fails to exercise the degree of skill or care that is reasonably expected of them, leading to harm or loss. In Nigerian law, such failures may trigger civil liability under the tort of negligence and disciplinary actions by professional regulatory bodies.

    Examples of Regulatory Bodies In Nigeria:

    • Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) – for Medical practitioners[2].
    • Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) – for Lawyers[3].
    • Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN) – for Engineers[4].

    These bodies are tasked with upholding professional standards, investigating complaints, and imposing sanctions. Yet, in most cases, the system breaks down, and neither justice nor accountability is achieved.

    Beyond the Doctor’s Mistake: Investigating the Chain of Legal Responsibility in Cases of Medical Negligence Involving Multiple Parties

    ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE[5]

    • Duty of Care[6]
      This refers to the legal obligation placed on individuals or organisations to exercise reasonable care when performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. For example, doctors owe a duty of care to other patients.
    • Breach of Duty
      A breach occurs when a person fails to meet the standard of care expected in a given situation. This means they acted (or failed to act) in a way that a reasonably prudent person would not have.
    • Causation
      There must be a direct link between the breach of duty and the harm suffered.
    • Damages
      The injured party must have suffered actual harm or loss, whether physical, emotional, or financial, as a result of the breach. Without proven damages, a negligence claim cannot succeed.

    TYPES OF PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

    Professional negligence can occur in various fields when a specialist fails to meet the expected standards of their profession, resulting in harm or loss to a client. Below are common types of professional negligence:

    • Legal Negligence
      Legal negligence happens when a legal professional, such as a lawyer/solicitor, fails to provide the appropriate level of care and competence while advising or representing a client. Examples of legal negligence include:
    • Failing to secure a fair settlement
    • Missing critical deadlines
    • Poor or insufficient communication with clients
    • Medical Negligence
      Also referred to as medical malpractice, this type of negligence occurs when healthcare professionals act carelessly or omit necessary steps, deviating from the standard of care expected in the medical field[7]. Under personal injury law, medical professionals are required to provide care that aligns with what a reasonably skilled professional would offer under similar conditions. Failing to meet this standard may constitute medical negligence. Healthcare providers who could be subject to a medical negligence claim include:
    • Doctors
    • Nurses
    • Dentists
    • Lab technicians
    • Financial Negligence
      Financial negligence arises when financial professionals fail to act in the best interests of their clients, leading to missed investment opportunities or financial losses[8]. If a financial expert breaches their duty of care, you may have grounds for a financial advisor negligence claim. Professionals who may be liable for financial negligence include:
    • Accountants
    • Auditors
    • Insurance brokers
    • Financial advisors
    • Stockbrokers
    • Tax advisors
    • Construction and Engineering Negligence
      This type of negligence occurs when construction or engineering professionals do not adhere to required safety or quality standards, causing harm, structural failure, or financial loss. For instance, if an engineer uses substandard materials and the building later collapses, the client may pursue a professional negligence claim for damages.

    WHAT CONSTITUTES A LEGAL BLACKOUT?

    A legal blackout arises when a valid claim of professional negligence is mishandled, dismissed, or ignored due to systemic dysfunctions. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:

    1. Jurisdictional Confusion – Victims often find themselves unsure whether to pursue redress through the courts, the relevant professional body, or an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Where multiple paths are attempted, jurisdictional clashes or procedural delays can halt progress entirely.
    2. Weak Regulatory Oversight – Many professional bodies in Nigeria lack the resources, independence, or will to enforce disciplinary measures effectively. Complaints may languish unresolved for years, while professionals with multiple allegations remain in active practice. For instance, Ada, a young mother, lost her newborn due to medical malpractice during childbirth. Despite lodging a formal complaint with the MDCN, she was bogged down by bureaucratic demands and procedural bottlenecks. Lacking funds for civil litigation, her pursuit of justice ended in silence.
    3. Corruption and Conflict of Interest – Regulatory institutions are sometimes compromised by internal politics and conflicts of interest. Panels may include members who are professionally or personally close to the accused, resulting in bias, case suppression, or outright dismissal of complaints.
    4. Inadequate Precedents and Legal Awareness – There is a scarcity of well-documented case law on professional negligence in Nigeria. This legal uncertainty discourages victims and even lawyers from pursuing cases, further entrenching the culture of impunity.

    RECOMMENDATIONS

    To prevent further legal blackouts and restore public confidence in professional accountability, comprehensive reforms are imperative:

    1. Legislative Clarity and Jurisdictional Harmonisation – Frameworks must define the respective jurisdictions of regulatory bodies. This will eliminate overlaps and streamline the path to justice.

    2. Strengthening Regulatory Institutions – Professional regulatory bodies must be made independent, well-funded, and accountable. Statutory timelines for the investigation and resolution of complaints should be strictly enforced. External audits and public performance reporting should be institutionalised.

    3. Expansion of Legal Aid – Legal aid schemes should be expanded to cover civil claims arising from professional negligence, with contributions from government, civil society, and the private sector.

    4. Legal Literacy and Public Awareness – Citizens must be informed of their rights and the procedures for holding professionals accountable. National awareness campaigns via media, community workshops, and seminars can empower the public and deter professional negligence.

    5. Judicial Reforms and Special Tribunals – Dedicated civil claims tribunals or fast-track divisions within the Court system should be established to handle professional negligence cases efficiently and expertly, reducing delays and improving outcomes.

    The occurrence of legal blackouts in professional negligence cases highlights a critical weakness in Nigeria’s justice and regulatory systems. When professionals are shielded from accountability by institutional inactivity, it not only injures individual victims but discourages collective faith in the professions themselves.

    References

    [1] https://www.vplaw.com/what-is-professional-negligence-called/

    [2] https://www.mdcn.gov.ng/

    [3]https://awjai.org/lpdc-addressing-lawyer-misconduct-in-nigeria/#:~:text=Established%20under%20the%20Legal%20Practitioners,few%20months%20to%20several%20years.

    [4] https://coren.gov.ng/

    [5] https://lawcentriole.com/understanding-negligence/

    [6] https://www.findlaw.com/injury/accident-injury-law/proving-fault-what-is-negligence.html

    [7] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7245980/

    [8] https://accountinginsights.org/what-is-financial-negligence-and-what-are-the-consequences/

  • AI in Filmmaking: The Impact of Generative Content in Filmmaking

    AI in Filmmaking: The Impact of Generative Content in Filmmaking

    INTRODUCTION

    Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly moved from experimental labs into the heart of creative industries, and filmmaking is no exception. The rise of generative AI tools means that filmmakers today can produce realistic visuals and create entire universes from just the prompt of a few words. We have even seen real-time scenarios where it has simulated and enhanced real-time actors’ performances with just a few prompts. Examples can be seen with the last winner of the Oscars 2025 Best Actor Award to Adrien Brody, in the film “The Brutalist”.[1]  The director Brady Corbet himself has acknowledged the fact that there was indeed use of AI to enhance the Hungarian of the Actor’s character.

    This is just one of the recent embraces of the use of Artificial Intelligence as a tool in filmmaking. We can find another example in the Amazon Prime Original video biblical based series “House of David”, where there was a prominent use of AI in creating the visual perspective of the scene in Episode 6 in the origin story of the Giants. The series creator and showrunner Jon Erwin gave testament to it, stating, “The entire scene is driven with generative AI tools as the horsepower to the scene. What we found in these tools works when combined with traditional tools ”. He also further stated that the initiative to make use of AI in the production process stemmed from the need to accommodate their ambitious creative visions under a budget. In all of season one, there were a total of 72 shots incorporated that involved the use of AI. “People can make cool images, certainly, and use these tools sort of as consumers, but to really use them in professional ways, it really is how you stack tools together that matters”. [2]

    With the mainstream acceptance of Artificial Intelligence, this promises efficiency and creativity on an unprecedented scale. However, it also raises difficult questions about authenticity, intellectual property, and the future of human talent in cinema.

    Netflix’s recent release of its AI content production guidelines[3] signals that the industry is beginning to take these concerns seriously, and for filmmakers? The challenge now is clear: How to balance the enormous potential of AI with the need to protect creativity, ethics, and audience trust.

    This article explores the pros and cons of using AI-generated content in filmmaking, highlighting the opportunities as well as the risks that industry players must carefully navigate.

    Let’s take a look at some of the Upside and Downside of filmmaking

    Advantages and Upside

    1. Efficiency and Cost Savings

    One of AI’s most immediate advantages is speed. Pre-production stages such as storyboarding, set design, or concept art, which traditionally take weeks, can now be accomplished in hours using AI image-generation tools. Visual effects (VFX) departments are also exploring AI to automate labour-intensive processes like rotoscoping or background creation, which often takes a lot of time to process, can now be done in seconds with the initiation of a prompt. And for independent filmmakers or small studios with limited budgets, this can be transformative. Instead of spending heavily on preliminary designs, they can allocate more resources to critical areas like casting or post-production. In an industry where time literally equals money, AI can streamline workflows and reduce overhead costs.

    2. Creative Expansion

    AI is not just about efficiency; it can also serve as a new creative canvas. These AI generative tools make it possible to imagine and create entire worlds and universes that would have been expensive or technically impossible to shoot. A filmmaker can visualise a dystopian cityscape, simulate different lighting effects, or de-age characters convincingly, all without requiring extensive physical resources. This creative flexibility allows filmmakers to push boundaries. For instance, science fiction and fantasy genres can benefit greatly from AI-driven visualisations, expanding possibilities for storytelling in ways that practical effects or CGI alone might struggle to achieve.

    3. Accessibility for Indie Filmmakers

    Perhaps the most overlooked benefit of AI is its democratising effect. Historically, blockbuster studios with deep pockets dominated cutting-edge filmmaking because of the high costs associated with visual effects and large-scale productions. With AI, even a solo creator or small team can generate film-quality content. This gives opportunities for new voices in cinema, particularly from underrepresented communities that may lack traditional industry backing. AI tools could enable a more diverse and inclusive filmmaking ecosystem, where creative ideas matter more than financial capacity.

    4. Risk Mitigation and Pre-Visualisation

    Another promising use of AI is in the Pre-production stage, and that can be seen in pre-visualisation. This essentially means creating a rough version of a film before production begins. Directors use Previz to test how a scene looks, adjust camera angles, and predict potential continuity errors, and all these have been aided with AI-assisted tools. AI helps directors and production teams anticipate challenges and refine their creative vision before stepping onto the set, and this reduces risks during actual filming, saving both time and money.

    Also read: When Machines Fail: Understanding Liability In AI-Driven Medical Errors Within Nigeria’s Healthcare System

    The Disadvantages and Potential Downside of AI in Filmmaking

    While the benefits are compelling, AI use in filmmaking is far from risk-free.

    1. Ethical and Legal Risks

    The most pressing concern is intellectual property. Many generative AI tools are trained on vast datasets scraped from the internet, often including copyrighted images, films, or artwork without explicit permission. If a filmmaker uses AI-generated visuals that inadvertently replicate someone else’s work, they risk lawsuits or reputational damage.

    Moreover, ownership of AI-generated content itself remains a legal grey area. Can a filmmaker claim copyright over a scene created entirely by AI? In most jurisdictions, copyright law still requires a “human author,” leaving AI-generated works in uncertain territory. So this leaves room for questions and uncertainty in a big industry like filmmaking that needs certainty to enable a secure working environment.

    2. Authenticity and Audience Trust

    Following Netflix’s recent release of the 2024 documentary “What Jennifer Did”, the controversy surrounding the documentary is a cautionary tale as the film used AI-generated imagery to recreate events, and some go as far as believing the audio was tampered with and edited to suit the production’s narrative, as there were no real interviews of the victims of this documentary.[4] Critics argued that it blurred the line between fact and fiction, potentially misleading viewers. Documentaries and biopics rely on audience trust, and AI imagery, no matter how realistic, can undermine that trust if not clearly disclosed. Audiences may also become sceptical of film content if they feel manipulated by synthetic images or AI-generated performances. In an era of deepfakes and misinformation, transparency about AI usage is crucial. Considering the major consumption of Filmmaking products is to connect with the audience and viewers on a human level.

    3. Threat to Human Creativity and Jobs

    Perhaps the most emotional debate around AI in film is its impact on talent. Writers, actors, and crew members worry that studios may use AI to cut costs by replacing human labour. This fear was central to the 2023 Hollywood strikes, where unions fought to limit AI’s role in replacing performers’ likenesses or generating scripts.[5]  Artistic storytelling has always been driven by human experience, empathy, and intuition, which qualities AI cannot replicate. And over-reliance on these generative tools could lead to formulaic, soulless content, undermining the very creativity that defines cinema.

    4. Data and Privacy Concerns

    AI’s reliance on training data raises privacy issues, particularly when it involves human likenesses. Could an extra’s face, once scanned, be reused endlessly without consent?

    Netflix’s guidelines explicitly forbid using AI to replace union-covered talent, but the temptation remains for less-regulated productions. Additionally, confidential production data fed into AI tools may not always be secure. If sensitive footage or unreleased scripts are stored on third-party servers, filmmakers risk leaks, breaches, or unauthorised reuse.

    The Balancing Act

    The tension between opportunity and risk makes it clear that AI in filmmaking cannot be treated casually. Netflix’s five guiding principles: Respecting copyright, Protecting talent, Ensuring transparency, and limiting AI outputs to approved contexts, offer a blueprint for responsible adoption.

    Ultimately, AI should be viewed as a supplement, not a substitute. It can assist with efficiency, broaden creative horizons, and democratise access, but it should not displace the human artistry that defines cinema. An example can be seen with the Writers Guild of America’s 2023 strike and the resolution met by the guild with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers.[6]  Guidelines were established for projects subject to their agreement. With these guidelines highlighting

    • AI can’t write or rewrite literary material, and AI-generated material cannot be used to undermine a writer’s credit.
    • A writer can choose to use AI when performing writing services if the company consents and provides that the writer follows applicable company policies, but the company can’t require the writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when writing.
    • Companies must disclose to the writer if any materials given to the writer have been generated by AI or incorporate AI-generated material.
    • The WGA reserves the right to assert that exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited by their collective bargaining agreement or other law.[7]

    With examples like this regulations can be put in place to ensure the monitored use of AI in Filmmaking, and this can help more as a tool than a threat to the pristine process of Filmmaking. Filmmakers who approach AI with this mindset will not only avoid legal pitfalls but also maintain the trust of their audiences.

    Conclusion

    The history of cinema is a story of technological disruption. The arrival of sound, colour, computer-generated imagery, and streaming platforms all reshaped the industry, often sparking fear before becoming accepted norms. AI represents the next wave of transformation. The question for filmmakers is not whether AI should be used, but how. Will it become a shortcut that erodes creativity and trust, or will it be harnessed as a tool to amplify human imagination?

    The future of filmmaking may depend on how responsibly the industry answers this question. If handled with care, AI could be the collaborator that helps tell richer, more diverse, and visually stunning stories. If misused, it could compromise the very essence of cinema.

    In this evolving landscape, we, however, think the wisest path for filmmakers is to embrace AI cautiously, while leveraging its power, while safeguarding the human spirit of storytelling.

     

    References

    [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/the-brutalists-ai-controversy-explained?srsltid=AfmBOorQ3T-nxtESU9cV3CvbE_6rXvtsSsGfZNjpUE9nqrqch96rpi8a

    [2] https://variety.com/2025/artisans/features/house-of-david-ai-goliath-origin-sequence-1236341674/

    [3] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/43393929218323-Using-Generative-AI-in-Content-Production#h_01K1BTNMC4RTXXMXPKW2TJJ2ZJ

    [4] https://www.decodingeverything.com/p/netflix-what-jennifer-did-ai-controversy

    [5] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/hollywood-writers-went-on-strike-to-protect-their-livelihoods-from-generative-ai-their-remarkable-victory-matters-for-all-workers/#:~:text=Among%20their%20list%20of%20demands,complement%E2%80%94not%20replace%E2%80%94them

    [6] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/oct/01/hollywood-writers-strike-artificial-intelligence

    [7] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/artificial-intelligence-law-advisor/2023/10/writers-strike-ai-workplace-disruption-hiring

     

  • Review of The Lagos State Tenancy and Recovery of Premises Draft Bill, 2025

    Review of The Lagos State Tenancy and Recovery of Premises Draft Bill, 2025

    Introduction

    The Lagos housing market remains a paradox: Africa’s most dynamic city, yet one of the continent’s most punishing rental environments.[1] According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2024), the headline inflation rate in Nigeria increased to 33.69% in April 2024, compared to 33.20% in March 2024. This represents an increase of 0.49 percentage points. On a year-on-year basis, the headline inflation rate was 11.47 percentage points higher than in April 2023 (22.22%). This indicates an increase in the headline inflation rate in April 2024 compared to April 2023. For many households in Lagos, rent consumes more than 50% of their monthly income, exceeding the United Nations’ affordability benchmark of 30%.[2]

    This reality was brought sharply into focus in February 2025 when a social media post by media personality Gbemi Olateru Olagbegi ignited a widespread conversation about the exorbitant cost of housing in Lagos. Olagbegi’s simple question, “So you guys are okay with the high rent in Lagos?” resonated deeply with residents who began sharing their experiences of abrupt and substantial rent increases imposed by their landlords. Numerous social media users recounted instances of unexpected and unjustified rent hikes. One user described a staggering 120% rent increase without any prior notification, while another reported a 50% rise in the rent for their self-contained apartment without explanation. Others echoed these frustrations, with one individual stating they had never paid the same rent twice since moving in due to constant increments. Another recounted being forced to relocate after a 100% rent increase, only to face a 50% hike in their subsequent apartment just three months before their lease renewal. The prevailing sentiment was that landlords in Lagos routinely double rent demands and threaten eviction for non-compliance. Even popular cook Sisi Yemmie shared her experience of being hit with a 120% rent increase without warning.[3]

    Addressing the issue of arbitrary rent increases by landlords, Bernard Onigah explained to Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ)[4], “To you, it is an arbitrary increase, but to the landlord, it is profit-making. It is a situation that is viewed from different angles, and we often describe it in the best way that suits our interests. The tenant who is at the receiving end imagines the rent is high, but the landlord imagines that, looking at inflation and the market, ‘I should be earning a certain amount from this property’. However, this does not mean that the rent rates charged in Lagos are a true reflection of the economic reality of the average Lagosian.” [5]

    This crisis is compounded by a deepening housing deficit. The State of Lagos Housing Market Report (Vol. 3), produced by the Roland Igbinoba Real Foundation for Housing and Urban Development (RIRFHUD), reveals a 15% increase in the housing gap from 2.95 million units in 2016 to 3.4 million in 2025.[6] Drawing from field surveys, property analytics, and satellite data, the report offers one of the most comprehensive independent assessments of the Lagos housing sector.[7] Its findings highlight widening inequalities: luxury apartments in areas like Lekki, Ikoyi, and Victoria Island remain in high demand despite economic strain, while urban and peri-urban residents struggle for affordable housing. With over 70% of Lagosians living as tenants, many spend 40–60% of their income on rent, a burden particularly severe in the city’s upscale districts.

    The Tenancy Law of 2011 was Lagos State’s first major attempt to regulate the landlord–tenant relationship.[8] However, with a population now exceeding 22 million (growing at 3.4% annually), weak enforcement mechanisms, and persistent inflationary pressures, the law’s protections have been steadily eroded.[9]

    In July 2025, the Lagos State House of Assembly introduced the Tenancy and Recovery of Premises Bill,[10] intended to repeal and replace the 2011 law. The Bill proposes to tighten rules on rent advances, streamline eviction processes, regulate agent commissions, and even introduce digital dispute resolution. Yet, as with most regulatory reforms, it has triggered mixed reactions: tenants see a possible lifeline, landlords and developers fear reduced investment returns, agents worry about shrinking margins, while the government faces tough questions about enforcement capacity.

    Key Provisions and Commentary

    Section 2 – Application of the Law

    The Bill provides that:

    “This Law shall apply to all premises within Lagos State, including business and residential premises unless otherwise specified” (s.2(1)).[11]

    It then exempts employer housing, educational institution housing, emergency shelters, and care facilities (s.2(2)).

    Commentary: This ensures broad coverage, but the exemptions may be abused to evade regulation, particularly by corporate landlords disguising residential premises as “staff housing.” Tenants argue that protections should be universal, while landlords claim exemptions are necessary to preserve flexibility for institutional accommodation.

    Section 3 – Engagement of an Agent

    The Bill mandates that:

    “Any person to be engaged as an agent, either by the landlord or the tenant, must be duly registered under the Lagos State Real Estate Regulatory Authority Law 2021” (s.3(1)).

    It also caps commissions at 5% of one year’s rent (s.3(4)) and criminalizes dual collection, non-remittance, or overcharging with penalties of fines up to ₦1,000,000 or two years’ imprisonment (s.3(5)).

    Commentary: This protects tenants from exploitation where agents often charge 10–15% plus hidden “development levies.” However, critics fear many informal agents (estimated at 60% of Lagos rentals) will simply bypass LASRERA registration, creating a parallel unregulated market.

    Section 5 – Advance Rent

    The Bill makes it unlawful for:

    • Sitting tenants to pay more than three months upfront for monthly tenancies or one year for yearly tenancies (s.5(1)-(2));
    • New tenants to pay more than one year in advance (s.5(3)-(4)).

    Violations attract ₦1,000,000 fine or three months’ imprisonment (s.5(5)).

    Commentary: This provision strikes at one of Lagos’ deepest pains: crippling multi-year rent advances. While some tenants welcome the move, others worry that monthly payments will empower landlords to raise prices and that annual payments are better suited for salary earners who may experience pay delays. Conversely, landlords argue that the upfront rent system is a necessary substitute for the lack of robust mortgage and credit markets in Nigeria, which hinders housing finance. Developers also caution that this change could discourage investment in new housing construction. Enforcement is a key concern, given that previous regulations against multi-year rent advances have been largely ineffective.

    Section 6 – Rent Payment Receipts

    The law requires landlords to issue receipts for every rent payment stating the amount, parties’ names, property description, and duration covered (s.6(2)).

    Commentary: This enhances transparency and provides crucial evidence in disputes. Tenants gain documentation of payments, while landlords face new compliance burdens.

    Section 7 – Rights of a Tenant

    The Bill guarantees:

    “A tenant has a right to quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the premises which includes the right to (a) privacy; (b) freedom from unreasonable disturbance; (c) exclusive possession of the premises…; and (d) the use of common areas” (s.7(1)).

    It further grants compensation for unexhausted improvements made with landlord consent (s.7(2)).

    Commentary: Enshrining privacy and protection from harassment is a major gain for tenants, especially in an era where landlords increasingly install CCTV and biometric access systems. However, this intersects with Nigeria’s Data Protection Act, 2023, raising questions about who owns and safeguards tenant data. Landlords worry about abuse of the “improvements” clause, fearing exaggerated claims at exit.

    Section 9 & 10 – Rights and Obligations of Landlords

    Landlords may inspect premises with notice (s.9(a)), ensure lawful use (s.9(b)), and collect service charges (s.9(c)). They are prohibited from disturbing quiet enjoyment, cutting off utilities, or seizing tenant property (s.10(a)-(d)).

    Commentary: These provisions curb the common abuses of self-help eviction, but landlords complain that restrictions tilt the balance too far towards tenants, especially when court processes for eviction remain slow.

    Section 11 – Tax Obligation on Rental Income

    The Bill applies the Withholding Tax Regulations to all rental income (s.11).

    Commentary: This secures state revenue in a sector long characterised by informality. Landlords, however, view this as double taxation, given they already pay Land Use Charges and Development Levies. Some fear it may drive tenancy back underground.

    Section 12 – Service Charge and Security Deposits

    Landlords must issue separate receipts for service charges and provide written accounts every six months (s.12(1)). Security deposits must be refunded at the tenancy’s end, less the cost of damages (s.12(2)).

    Commentary: This tackles widespread abuse of opaque service charges. Yet estate managers may resist disclosure, and tenants often face disputes over deposit refunds—the single most litigated tenancy issue in Lagos.

    Section 14 – Length of Notice

    Where unstated in agreements, notice periods are standardised: one week (tenant at will), one month (monthly tenancy), three months (quarterly/half-yearly), and six months (yearly tenancy) (s.14(1)).

    Crucially, if a tenant owes two months’ arrears (monthly tenancy) or three months’ arrears (quarterly/half-yearly), the tenancy lapses and only seven days’ eviction notice is required (s.14(2)-(4)).

    Commentary: This strengthens landlord recovery rights but raises humanitarian concerns in a city where unemployment exceeds 33%. Civil society groups warn it could swell homelessness without safeguards.

    Sections 15–19 – Notices and Recovery of Possession

    The Bill modernizes service of notices, permitting delivery to occupants, courier service, or affixing to the premises (s.16–17). Tenants who refuse to quit after expiration may be served a seven-day recovery notice (s.19).

    Commentary: These clarify eviction procedures and outlaw unlawful evictions, yet court delays remain a bottleneck. Lagos sheriffs are overwhelmed, meaning rights on paper may not translate to practice.

    Section 21 – Grounds for Possession

    The court may order possession for arrears, breach of covenant, landlord’s personal use, unsafe premises, illegal use, abandonment, or intolerable nuisance (s.21(a)-(j)).

    Commentary: This codifies diverse grounds but leaves much discretion to courts already plagued by backlog.

    Section 22 – Proceedings by Originating Summons

    The Bill allows landlords to seek possession through Originating Summons, supported by affidavit, exhibits, and statutory notices (s.22(1)–(3)). Tenants may also bring claims against landlords after serving a 30-day pre-action notice (s.22(4)–(5)).

    Commentary: This provision is designed to streamline possession claims and avoid lengthy trials. By shifting many matters into affidavit-based summary proceedings, it reduces the evidentiary burden. Landlords welcome the speed, as eviction timelines often drag on for over a year. Tenants worry that affidavit-only hearings may limit their chance to present oral evidence, especially for low-income renters without legal counsel. Courts may face a surge in technical affidavit disputes rather than trials, shifting but not necessarily reducing workload.

    Section 23 – Defence

    Defendants (usually tenants) must file counter-affidavits within 14 days (s.23(1)), with landlords entitled to reply in 7 days (s.23(2)). Default leads to judgment against the tenant (s.23(3)).

    Commentary: This strengthens procedural discipline but risks shutting out tenants who lack resources or legal literacy. Tenants argue the timelines are harsh, given financial hardship and court access issues. Landlords see it as overdue discipline to discourage frivolous delay tactics.

    Section 24 – Hearing

    Hearings must be fixed within 14 days after pleadings close, and may continue day-to-day until judgment (s.24(1)–(3)).

    Commentary: This aligns with global best practice in housing courts (e.g., South Africa’s tribunals). The judiciary faces questions of capacity — Lagos Magistrates’ Courts are already overwhelmed. Tenants welcome faster justice if implemented fairly, but fear “speed” could mean “rush to eviction.”

     

    Also read: Omo Oni Ile Rights in Nigeria: Are They Valid or Extinguishable?

     

    Section 25 – Appeals

    Appeals require leave within 30 days, with strict documentation including proof of rent and utility payments (s.25(2)).

    Commentary: This discourages frivolous appeals but may bar genuine tenant appeals from reaching higher courts. Tenants see this as a high bar; indigent renters may be unable to meet the financial undertakings. Landlords see it as ensuring possession orders aren’t endlessly delayed.

    Section 26–29 – Fixed Terms, Unknown Occupants, Breach and Abandonment

    Landlords may recover at the end of fixed terms (s.26). “Persons unknown” in unlawful occupation can be sued by affixing notices to the property (s.27). Landlords may issue re-entry notices for breach of covenant (s.28). Abandoned premises may be repossessed after 60 days (s.29).

    Commentary: These provisions modernise recovery in contexts like squatting and abandoned flats common in Lagos. Developers see this as essential to protect investments. Civil society fears abuse, particularly in labelling vulnerable occupants as “persons unknown” or prematurely declaring “abandonment.” Tenants demand clearer safeguards against wrongful eviction.

    Section 31–32 – Virtual Hearings and Weekend Courts

    The Bill permits weekend/public holiday sittings (s.31) and virtual hearings via audio-visual platforms (s.32).

    Commentary: This is innovative, especially given the COVID-era experience. It could reduce case backlogs significantly. Lawyers welcome efficiency but worry about the digital exclusion of low-income tenants with poor internet access. The judiciary faces infrastructure gaps; many Lagos courts still lack stable connectivity.

    Section 33 – Unreasonable Rent Increases

    Tenants may challenge rent hikes as “unreasonable,” with courts considering local rents, evidence, and special circumstances (s.33).

    Commentary: This is a landmark tenant protection, but the standard is vague. Unlike the UK, which ties increases to inflation indices, Lagos leaves it to judicial discretion. Tenants see this as hope against arbitrary 50% or 100% hikes in hot markets like Lekki. Landlords fear uncertainty and judicial overreach. Developers warn it could disincentivize new builds if returns are capped by subjective rulings.

    Section 34–37 – Court as Rent Receiver & Mediation

    Courts may receive rent if landlords refuse payment (s.34), order mesne profits (s.35), and promote mediation within 30 days (s.36–37).

    Commentary: These provisions blend enforcement with ADR, recognising court congestion. Tenants like the option to pay through courts, protecting them from claims of arrears. Landlords see court-held rent as delaying cash flow. Mediation centres may be overwhelmed without funding.

    Section 38–42 – Enforcement & Warrants

    Courts may issue warrants for possession, renewable every three months (s.41). Entry may not occur on Sundays or holidays (s.42).

    Commentary: Provides due process safeguards while ensuring enforceability. Landlords appreciate stronger enforcement tools. Tenants fear rapid enforcement without adequate relocation support. The government faces the cost of training and monitoring sheriffs to avoid abuse.

    Section 43 – Offences and Penalties

    Offences include unlawful eviction, harassment, property damage, resisting sheriffs, and false information. Penalties reach ₦1,000,000 fines or six months’ imprisonment.[12]

    Commentary: This criminalises common abuses such as landlords cutting utilities. Tenants hail it as overdue. Landlords argue that penalties are excessive and may criminalise honest mistakes. Agents worry about liability for routine disputes.

    Comparative Perspective

    • South Africa: The Rental Housing Tribunal provides swift, low-cost dispute resolution.[13] Lagos State does have a dispute resolution mechanism under the Lagos State Tenancy Law, which includes mediation through the Lagos State Real Estate Transaction Department. However, the South African Rental Housing Tribunal offers a more formalised, cost-free, and quicker process, involving mediation and binding arbitration, whereas Lagos’s system can be less efficient, potentially leading to further reliance on the overburdened court system for resolution.
    • Ghana: Rent control exists under the Rent Act, but it has been widely criticised for being outdated, poorly implemented, and underfunded. Lagos risks the same fate unless it matches law with institutional support.[14]
    • United Kingdom: The Renters Reform UK law limits rent reviews to once per year and grants tenants the right to challenge rent increases they deem unfair. Tenants can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to assess whether a proposed rent increase is at or below the prevailing market rate. Importantly, the tribunal’s authority is limited to approving, reducing, or maintaining the existing rent; it cannot increase it further.[15] This system contrasts with Lagos’s proposed standard of a “reasonable increase,” which lacks a clear definition and could potentially lead to more disputes between landlords and tenants, due to the ambiguity in determining what constitutes a fair and justified increase.

    Conclusion

    The Lagos tenancy law reflects an important attempt to balance the interests of landlords, tenants, agents, and government, but its implementation remains riddled with gaps. Compared with jurisdictions like South Africa, Ghana, and the UK, Nigeria’s framework struggles with enforcement, tenant protection, and transparency, leaving room for abuse by developers and agents. Unless the law is backed by strong regulatory oversight, digital transparency, and tenant education, the housing market will continue to tilt in favour of those with greater bargaining power.[16]

     

    References

    [1]Amarachi okeke August 21, 2025 Lagos Rental Market Stalls at 1.38 Million Households Despite Soaring Population, accessed on 4th September 2025 from Growthhttps://www.nigeriahousingmarket.com/real-estate-news-nigeria/lagos-rental-households-stagnant-for-9-years-despite-rising-population

    [2]NBS, CPI and Inflation Report April 2024 accessed on 5th September 2025 from https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/elibrary/read/1241497

    [3]Opeyemi lawal (2025) How Lagos Laws Let Landlords Increase Rent Without Restraint accessed on 5th th September 2025 from https://fij.ng/article/how-lagos-laws-let-landlords-increase-rent-without-restraint/#:

    [4] Foundation for Investigative journalism

    [5] Ibid.

    [6]The State of Lagos Housing Market Report (Vol. 3), produced by the Roland Igbinoba Real Foundation for Housing and Urban Development (RIRFHUD),

    [7]Temi, O. J., & Champika, L. (2018). Urbanization and Meeting the Need for Affordable Housing in Nigeria. In A. Amjad & A. Asaad (Eds.), Housing (pp. 1-19). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78576

    [8] Tenancy Law of 2011

    [9] Loree Montelli, Kevin Newton (2023) Rapid Population Growth | Importance, Consequences & Impact accessed on 5th September 2025 from https://study.com/academy/lesson/rapid-population-growth-consequences-prevention-methods.

    [10]The Lagos State Tenancy And Recovery of Premises Draft Bill, 2025

    [11] section 2(1) of the Bill

    [12] Section 43 of the Bill

    [13]Sajjad Ahmad (2024) Rental Housing Act: Understanding Tenant and Landlord Rights accessed on 5th September 2025 from https://www.landlordsassociation.co.za/guide-to-the-rental-housing-act-understanding-tenant-and-landlord-rights/

    [14]Nelson C.J (2025) This Union in Ghana is Fighting For Rent Control and Affordable Housing accessed on 4th September 2025 from https://www.okayafrica.com/national-tenants-union-ghana/

    [15] Suzanne Smith (2025) The new rules about rent in the Renters’ Rights Bill Accessed on 5th September 2025 from https://theindependentlandlord.com/renters-rights-rent/

    [16]Olugbenga, E., & Adekemi, O. (2013). Challenges of Housing Delivery in Metropolitan Lagos. Research on Humanities and Social Science, 3(20), 1-8. Retrieved From https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234673721.pdf

  • Omo Oni Ile Rights in Nigeria: Are They Valid or Extinguishable?

    Omo Oni Ile Rights in Nigeria: Are They Valid or Extinguishable?

    Land ownership in Nigeria is a complex issue deeply rooted in history, culture, and power dynamics. The concept of “Omo Oni Ile,” which translates to “the child of the landowner,” (in Yoruba parlance), is central to understanding traditional land rights in many Nigerian communities. These rights, derived from ancestral claims, first settlement, purchase, conquest, or historical ties, have long been a source of pride and identity for families and communities. However, in a modern state where the government wields significant authority over land, the question arises: Are Omo Oni Ile rights still valid, or are they extinguishable? This article explores this nebulous issue, exploring the origins of these rights, the government’s role in land ownership, and the implications for Omo Oni Ile in contemporary Nigeria.

    The Foundations of Omo Oni Ile Rights

    Traditionally, land ownership in Nigeria is derived from five primary sources: the right of first settlers, the right by purchase, the right of conquest, historical claims, and customary inheritance[1]. For the Omo Oni Ile, these rights represent not just ownership of land, but also identity, heritage, and community standing. The first settlers, often seen as the original landowners, passed down these rights through generations, creating a sense of stability and legitimacy within their communities. However, these traditional systems often clash with modern legal backgrounds, particularly when the government asserts its authority over land use and ownership (remember the Magodo fiasco in Lagos State circa 2021/22)[2]. This tension raises critical questions about the validity and sustainability of Omo Oni Ile rights in a rapidly evolving society, like Nigeria.

    Government Authority and the Extinguishment of Rights 

    The Nigerian Land Use Act of 1978[3] is a crucial piece of legislation that grants the government significant control over land. According to this law, all land within a state is vested in the governor, who holds it in trust for the people. This means that the government can acquire land for public purposes, often without the consent of the Omo Oni Ile (or landowners). Although the Act stipulates compensation, the process often leads to disputes, delays, and accusations of unfairness. This raises an important question: Does the government have both the moral and legal authority to extinguish centuries-old rights in the name of development or public interest? This issue is particularly argumentative and contentious in urban areas, where land values are high and the stakes are even greater.

     Who Holds the Power? 

    The authority to extinguish the rights of the Omo Oni Ile primarily lies with the government, but this power is not absolute. It is subject to legal and constitutional limitations, like Constitutional safeguards under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which protect the right to property and fair compensation[4], Judicial oversight where courts have occasionally upheld customary claims against arbitrary acquisition, as well as sometimes public opinion, especially in indigenous communities where dispossession undermines social cohesion. However, many communities often feel powerless when faced with government land acquisitions. The lack of transparency and accountability in land acquisition processes exacerbates these tensions. For the Omo Oni Ile, the loss of their rights is not merely a legal issue; it is also a cultural and emotional one. It challenges their identity and connection to their ancestors. This raises a broader question: Should traditional land rights be protected in the interest of cultural preservation, or should they yield to the demands of modernisation and development?

    The Validity of Omo Oni Ile Rights in Modern Nigeria 

    The validity of Omo Oni Ile rights is a topic of heated debate. On one hand, these rights are deeply ingrained in Nigerian culture and history, representing a tangible link to the past. On the other hand, the realities of a modern state require a centralised approach to land management, particularly in urban areas where infrastructure and housing are in high demand. Critics argue that traditional land ownership systems are outdated and incompatible with contemporary needs. Advocates, however, contend that these rights are fundamental to the identity and survival of many communities. Striking a balance between these perspectives is crucial for achieving social harmony and equitable development.

    The Role of Legal Context 

    Nigeria’s legal system plays a critical role in mediating the conflict between traditional land rights and government authority. The Land Use Act, while controversial, provides a framework for land administration. However, its implementation often leaves much to be desired. Many Omo Oni Ile feel that the law is lopsided in favour of the government and powerful interests, leaving them vulnerable, deprived, and uncompensated. There is a growing call for legal reforms that recognise and protect traditional land rights while accommodating the needs of a modern state. Such reforms could include clearer guidelines for compensation, greater community involvement in land acquisition processes, and stronger safeguards against abuse of power.

    Omo Oni Ile in Practice 

    The Supreme Court has clarified that the Land Use Act significantly limits the powers of Omo Oni Ile. While their ownership status under customary law is preserved, they are no longer regarded as ultimate owners. Importantly, they must now obtain the Governor’s consent before transferring or alienating land interests, something they could previously do without restriction[5]. Examining specific cases helps to shed light on the complexities of Omo Oni Ile rights. In Lagos, where land values have risen sharply, numerous disputes have emerged between indigenous landowners and the government. In some cases, communities have successfully challenged government acquisitions in court, asserting their rights as Omo Oni Ile. In others, they have been compelled to surrender land with minimal compensation. These contrasting outcomes reveal the inconsistent application of the law and highlight the need for a more equitable framework. They also underscore the critical role of legal expertise in navigating such disputes, a service that firms like Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL) are uniquely positioned to provide.

    The Dangers of Omo Oni Ile Conflicts

    While Omo Oni Ile rights symbolise heritage and ancestral pride, they can also become significant sources of conflict, exploitation, and even violence. In many parts of Nigeria, disputes over land ownership between Omo Oni Ile and buyers or government authorities have escalated into long-standing legal battles, family feuds, and in some cases, fatal confrontations. Contributing factors such as the absence of documented land titles, ambiguous traditional boundaries, and the presence of multiple claimants to the same land create an environment susceptible to exploitation by land grabbers, fraudulent agents, or competing factions within families. Individuals who acquire land without verifying Omo Oni Ile claims or securing proper legal documentation risk losing their investments and becoming embroiled in emotionally and financially draining long drawn out disputes. These dangers are compounded by inconsistent law enforcement and an overburdened judiciary, making it clear that ignorance or dismissal of Omo Oni Ile dynamics can lead to serious consequences.

    The Cultural and Economic Implications

    The deprivation of Omo Oni Ile rights has significant cultural and economic consequences. For many communities, land serves not only as an asset but also as a source of livelihood and cultural identity. Losing access to land can lead to severe economic hardship and social displacement. Moreover, the erosion of traditional land rights can diminish cultural heritage by severing the communities’ connection to their ancestral lands. However, development projects that require land acquisition can offer economic benefits, such as job creation and improved infrastructure, among other identified benefits. Balancing these competing interests is a delicate task that necessitates careful consideration, inclusive decision-making, and legal policy formulation at all levels.

    Proposed Solutions

    To address the challenges related to Omo Oni Ile rights, a multifaceted approach is essential. Legal reforms are crucial, as previously noted. Additionally, there needs to be increased dialogue between the government, traditional landowners, and other stakeholders. Mediation and conflict resolution mechanisms (ADR) can help bridge the gap between competing interests and costly litigation.

    Why Legal Guidance is Essential and the Role of OAL

    In navigating the complexities of land issues, seeking legal advice is not merely advisable; it is essential. Whether you are an Omo Oni Ile aiming to protect your ancestral rights, a prospective land buyer contending with traditional claims, a government entity acquiring land for public development, or just for the general knowledge guiding land acquisition, OAL Real Estate Practice provides indispensable clarity, education (Under OAL Academy), and ensures compliance with existing laws. The involvement of legal professionals like OAL reduces the risk of unlawful dispossession, fraudulent transactions, and protracted litigation. By engaging legal expertise early in the process, such as in a Joint Venture transaction, individuals and communities can circumvent preventable setbacks, safeguard their rights, and contribute to a more transparent and equitable land administration system in Nigeria. Our Legal experts provide critical services, including land verification, title documentation, negotiation, mediation, and representation in court.

    Conclusion:

    The question of whether Omo Oni Ile rights are valid or extinguishable is complex. These rights are deeply rooted in Nigerian culture and history, yet they face significant challenges in a modern state. While the government has the authority to extinguish these rights, it must do so with fairness, transparency, and respect for the cultural and economic significance of land to the Omo Oni Ile. Legal reforms, inclusive dialogue, and expert mediation are key to resolving this complex issue. Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance that honours tradition while embracing progress, ensuring that the rights of the Omo Oni Ile are neither ignored nor taken for granted, or in the big picture, enable progress and modern development nationwide.

    References

    [1] Elias, T.O., Nigerian Land Law (5th ed., 2011)

    [2] See the Magodo Phase 2 Land Dispute, Lagos State (2021–2022), where indigenous families resisted state allocations.

    [3] Land Use Act, Cap L5, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

    [4] Section 44(1), 1999 Constitution (as amended) – protection of right to property subject to compulsory acquisition with compensation.

    [5] See Ogunola v. Eiyekole (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 632, affirming recognition of customary land ownership.

  • Unruly Passenger Behaviour in Nigerian Aviation: A Legal Guide to Rights, Obligations and Consequences

    Unruly Passenger Behaviour in Nigerian Aviation: A Legal Guide to Rights, Obligations and Consequences

    Introduction

    The Nigerian aviation sector has witnessed a concerning surge in disruptive passenger incidents over recent years, ranging from verbal altercations with crew members to serious safety violations that endanger lives. These incidents not only compromise flight safety but also create significant operational disruptions and legal liabilities for all parties involved.

    This article examines Nigeria’s legal and regulatory framework governing unruly passenger behaviour with a view to educating passengers and airline personnel on their respective rights and obligations. Understanding this framework is crucial for maintaining the delicate balance between passenger rights and aviation safety requirements.

    The Nigerian Legal Framework

    Nigeria’s approach to managing passenger misconduct operates through a sophisticated multi-tiered legal structure that combines domestic legislation with international aviation standards.

    Primary Legislative Instruments

    The Civil Aviation Act 2022[1] serves as the cornerstone legislation, establishing the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) as the primary regulatory body with comprehensive enforcement powers. This Act replaced the outdated Civil Aviation Act of 2006, bringing Nigerian aviation law in line with modern international standards.

    The Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations 2023[2] provides detailed operational guidelines for consumer protection and passenger conduct requirements. These regulations translate the broad principles of the Act into specific, actionable requirements for airlines and passengers.

    International Integration occurs through the Montreal Convention, which Nigeria has incorporated into domestic law, ensuring consistency with global aviation liability standards. Additionally, Nigeria adheres to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards, particularly Annex 17[3] concerning aviation security.

    Complementary Protection is provided by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018[4], which establishes broader consumer protection principles that supplement aviation-specific regulations.

    Understanding Unruly Behaviour: Legal Definitions and Scope

    The ICAO Standard Definition

    Under international standards adopted by Nigeria, Annex 17 to the ICAO Chicago Convention defines a disruptive passenger as:

    “A passenger who fails to respect the rules of conduct at an airport or on board an aircraft or to follow the instructions of the airport staff or crew members and thereby disturbs the good order and discipline at an airport or on board the aircraft.”

    Categories of Unruly Behaviour

    Unruly conduct can be classified into several distinct categories:

    Level 1 – Minor Disruptions:

    • Verbal disagreements with crew or passengers
    • Failure to comply with crew instructions regarding seating or safety equipment
    • Creating noise disturbances

     Level 2 – Moderate Disruptions:

    • Verbal abuse or aggressive language toward crew or passengers
    • Refusing to comply with safety regulations
    • Creating significant disturbances affecting other passengers

     Level 3 – Serious Disruptions:

    • Physical confrontations or assault
    • Sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour
    • Interference with aircraft safety systems
    • Making false emergency declarations

     Level 4 – Criminal Conduct:

    • Hijacking or attempted hijacking
    • Terrorist threats or activities
    • Serious assault causing bodily harm

    Key Statutory Provisions and Their Practical Implications

    Pilot-in-Command Authority

    Section 85(4) of the Civil Aviation Act[5] establishes the pilot-in-command’s paramount authority during flight operations. This provision states that when faced with unruly passenger behaviour, the pilot-in-command is not only authorised but legally obligated to take reasonable measures to ensure aircraft and passenger safety.

    Practical Implications:

    • Pilots can order the physical restraint of disruptive passengers
    • Crew members can request assistance from other passengers
    • Diversion to the nearest suitable airport is legally justified
    • Post-flight detention and handover to authorities is authorised

     Hijacking and Interference Provisions

    Section 83 of the Civil Aviation Act[6] addresses the most serious forms of passenger misconduct. It criminalises any attempt to unlawfully seize or exercise control over an aircraft through force, threats, coercion, intimidation, or technological means.

    Legal Elements Required for Prosecution:

    1. Unlawful seizure or attempted seizure of control
    2. Use of force, threats, coercion, or intimidation
    3. The intent to control the aircraft’s operation

    Assault Against Flight Crew

    Section 85(2)[7] specifically criminalises assault and violent conduct against pilots and other flight crew members, recognising the critical safety role these individuals play in aviation operations.

    Financial and Criminal Penalties

    Civil Penalties

    The Nigerian Civil Aviation Act possesses broad authority under Section 78[8] to impose civil penalties for violations of aviation regulations. These administrative penalties serve both punitive and deterrent functions:

    Minor Violations:

    • Refusal to submit to security screening: Minimum ₦500,000 fine[9]
    • Assault on crew members: Minimum ₦200,000 fine [10]

    General regulatory violations: Variable fines based on severity

    Moderate Violations:

    • Dangerous flying causing risk amounts to a Minimum ₦2 million fine or 2 years imprisonment as stipulated in Section 81[11]. This offence applies to the pilot or owner of the aircraft and includes operating an aircraft in a manner that endangers persons or property, whether in the air, on land, or on water.
    • Organising Aircraft Hijacking: ₦2 million fine or five years imprisonment[12].

    Severe Violations:

    • Hijacking offences: Minimum ₦25 million fine [13]

    Criminal Penalties

    The Civil Aviation Act establishes a graduated system of imprisonment terms:

    Short-term Imprisonment:

    • Assault on flight crew: Minimum 2 months[14]
    • Aerodrome trespassing: Minimum 6 months[15]
    • Minor safety violations: 6 months to 2 years

    Medium-term Imprisonment:

    • Dangerous flying by pilots: Minimum 2 years[16]
    • Organising Aircraft Hijacking: Minimum 5 years[17]

    Life Imprisonment:

    • Hijacking offences: Life imprisonment[18]
    • Terrorist activities aboard aircraft

     Administrative Enforcement Powers

    Section 78(3) grants the NCAA extensive enforcement capabilities:

    • Aircraft detention and grounding
    • Sealing of airline offices and operations
    • Asset seizure and lien enforcement
    • Operating license suspension or revocation

    Passenger Rights Protection

    Constitutional Foundation

    While the legal framework establishes strict conduct standards, it simultaneously preserves fundamental passenger rights rooted in Nigeria’s constitutional guarantees of dignity, fair treatment, and due process.

    Compensation Frameworks

    The NCAA Act[19] mandates the establishment of comprehensive compensation schemes, ensuring passengers have legal remedies for service failures and operational disruptions.

    Montreal Convention Integration[20]:

    • Applies to both international and domestic flights within Nigeria
    • Mandatory advance payments of US$30,000 minimum within 30 days for accident-related deaths or injuries
    • Standardised liability limits and compensation procedures

    Detailed Passenger Care Obligations:

    Part 19 of the NCAA Regulations 2023 establishes specific airline obligations during service disruptions:

    For 2-3 Hour Delays:

    • Free refreshments and meals
    • Two complementary communication attempts (phone calls, emails, or texts)
    • Regular updates on flight status

     For Delays Exceeding 3 Hours:

    • All benefits listed above, plus:
    • Free accommodation when delays occur between 10 PM and 4 AM
    • Ground transportation to and from the accommodation
    • Enhanced communication services

    For Cancellations and Denied Boarding:

    • Rebooking on the next available flight at no additional cost
    • Full refund if the passenger chooses not to travel
    • Compensation based on flight distance and delay duration

    Complaint and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

    The framework establishes multiple avenues for addressing passenger grievances:

    Airline-Level Resolution:

    • Designated customer service officers for complaint handling
    • Mandatory internal grievance procedures
    • Time limits for response to passenger complaints

     Regulatory Oversight:

    • NCAA Consumer Complaints Portal for formal dispute resolution
    • Authority to conduct investigations
    • Administrative hearings for unresolved disputes
    • Binding decisions on compensation and remedial actions

    A Balanced Framework: Mutual Rights and Responsibilities

    The Nigerian aviation legal framework operates on a fundamental principle of balance; both passengers and airlines have clearly defined rights that come with corresponding responsibilities.

    Airlines must:

    • Maintain professional service standards with properly trained staff
    • Provide clear, timely communication during disruptions
    • Process compensation and refunds promptly and transparently
    • Create service environments that minimise passenger frustration

    Passengers must:

    • Behave respectfully toward airline and airport personnel
    • Comply with safety instructions and regulations
    • Use proper complaint channels before escalating disputes
    • Recognise that service failures don’t justify abusive behaviour

    Key Recommendations:

    For Passengers: Stay informed about your rights, use established complaint procedures, document service issues, and maintain professional conduct even during frustrating situations.

    For Airlines: Invest in robust communication systems, ensure comprehensive staff training on both passenger rights and de-escalation techniques, maintain policy transparency, and continuously improve customer service procedures.

    This balanced approach ensures that while passengers receive full protection of their legitimate rights, airlines can maintain safe operations, and both parties contribute to a respectful aviation environment.

    Conclusion

    The legal response to unruly passenger behaviour is a balancing act between ensuring aviation safety and protecting legitimate passenger rights. The framework’s success depends not merely on the existence of laws and regulations but on the continued commitment of all stakeholders, passengers, airlines, and regulatory authorities to fostering a culture of mutual respect and professional conduct.

    The message embedded in this framework is unambiguous: while disruptive behaviour will face swift and severe consequences, passengers who conduct themselves appropriately can expect full protection of their rights and prompt, fair resolution of their legitimate concerns through established channels.

    As Nigeria’s aviation sector continues its growth trajectory, this legal framework provides the foundation for safe, secure, and passenger-friendly air travel that serves the nation’s economic and social development objectives. The framework’s effectiveness ultimately depends on informed participation by all stakeholders who understand both their rights and their responsibilities within the system.

    References

    [1] Nigeria Civil Aviation Act 2022

    [2] Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations, part 19

    [3] International Civil Aviation Organization, Annex 17

    [4] Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018

    [5]Section 85(4) of the Civil Aviation Act 2022 – The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall take such reasonable measures as may be necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft and security of passengers on board whenever he is faced with an unruly passenger behaviour and may request the assistance of any person on board the aircraft in that regard.

    [6]Section 83(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 2022 – Whosoever onboard an aircraft in service unlawfully and intentionally by force or threat of it, or by coercion or by any other form of intimidation or by any technological means, seizes or exercises control of an aircraft or makes a threat to commit the offence set forth in this subsection or unlawfully and intentionally causes any person to receive such threat under circumstances which indicate that the threat is credible, commits the offence of hijacking of such aircraft.

    [7]Ibid, Section 78 Any person who, assaults, intimidates, or threatens any flight crew member or flight attendant, including any steward or stewardess of such aircraft or engages in an unruly behavior onboard such aircraft, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of at least N200,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least two months or both.

    [8]Ibid, Section 78 – The Authority shall have power to impose civil penalties for violation of any provisions of this Act or any rules, regulations, orders or directives issued or made under this Act.

    [9] Ibid, Section 45(3)

    [10] Ibid, Section 85(2)

    [11]Ibid, Section 81

    [12] Ibid, Section 85(4)

    [13] Ibid, Section 86(3)

    [14] Ibid, Section 85(2)

    [15] Ibid, Section 75(1)

    [16] Ibid, Section 81

    [17] Ibid, Section 85(4)

    [18] Ibid, Section 83(5)

    [19] Ibid, Section 102

    [20] The Montreal Convention Integration is domesticated in Nigeria under Section 55 of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Act 2022

  • Beyond the Doctor’s Mistake: Investigating the Chain of Legal Responsibility in Cases of Medical Negligence Involving Multiple Parties

    Beyond the Doctor’s Mistake: Investigating the Chain of Legal Responsibility in Cases of Medical Negligence Involving Multiple Parties

    Introduction

    Mrs. Okafor, a 52-year-old diabetic patient, was admitted to a private hospital in Lagos for a routine laparoscopic gallbladder removal (a minimal surgical procedure). Her consulting surgeon performed the operation successfully, but shortly afterwards, she developed a severe infection that led to septic shock. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the surgical instruments used had not been properly sterilised due to a malfunctioning autoclave machine. The biomedical technician had flagged the fault a week before, but hospital management delayed repairs due to budget constraints. Additionally, the nurse in charge failed to verify the instrument sterilisation log, as required by protocol. To worsen matters, the early signs of infection were miscommunicated between the night-shift nurse and the attending physician, leading to a 12-hour delay in intervention.

    In this scenario, Mrs. Okafor’s harm did not stem from the surgeon’s skill, but from multiple failures involving defective equipment, protocol breaches, communication lapses, and poor institutional oversight, each raising potential legal liability beyond the doctor’s conduct.

    This case of Mrs Okafor reveals a fundamental truth about medical negligence in Nigeria: responsibility rarely stops with the individual practitioner. When disaster strikes in a complex system, the first instinct is to hunt for a villain, someone to pin the whole mess on. While media narratives often single out doctors, many failures stem from systemic issues involving hospitals, nurses, equipment manufacturers, labs, and others.

    This article explores the full chain of legal responsibility when multiple parties are liable in a case of medical negligence.

    Understanding Medical Negligence in Nigerian Jurisprudence

    Medical negligence constitutes an act or omission by a medical practitioner which falls below the accepted standard of care, resulting in injury or death of the patient.[1] The Supreme Court defined negligence in U.T.B. (Nig.) v. Ozoemena[2] as “a lack of proper care and attention; careless behaviour or conduct; a state of mind, which is opposed to intention; the breach of a duty of care imposed by common law and statute resulting in damage to the complainant.”

    We see a lot of hospitals engraving a sign that reads ‘We Care, God Heals” yet we see a lot of medical personnel and hospitals guilty of medical negligence, ignoring the first part of such inscription. Medical professionals are legally bound to uphold a duty of care, and breaching this duty, resulting in harm, can lead to compensation claims. Perfection is not required, but a reasonable standard of care must be maintained.[3] It is important to note that the law does not require medical professionals to be perfect every time they carry out their job, as this is not humanly possible.[4]

    It is important also to note that negligence is complete and actionable where the Defendant owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff; the duty was breached and damages were suffered arising from the breach. From the scenario painted in the introduction, one can see that the hospital owes a duty to the patient for a successful surgery, and that duty was breached due to the action of the hospital’s failure to repair the autoclave machine because of budget constraints. The negligence from that scenario did not emanate from the surgeon, which eventually involved multiple parties, but started from the time the hospital failed to repair the autoclave machine.

    Crucially, Nigerian jurisprudence recognises that negligence encompasses acts and omissions by all healthcare providers and not just doctors. This includes nurses, pharmacists, laboratory attendants and any other healthcare provider. This is contrary to the general belief that only doctors can be liable for medical negligence.[5] Medical negligence in Nigeria extends beyond simple mistakes to encompass systemic failures across healthcare delivery.

    Also read: Negligence by Design: When Poor User Experience/User Interface in Health Technology Causes Harm to Patient, Is There a Case to Answer?

    Who can sue and be sued for medical negligence?

    Individuals directly affected by medical errors generally have the right to sue for malpractice. Exceptions exist for deceased patients or minors, allowing close relatives or guardians to pursue legal action.[6]

    Who Can Be Liable For Medical Negligence?

    When it comes to medical negligence in Nigeria, liability can be attributed to multiple parties depending on the circumstances. The increasing complexity of healthcare means that a single patient encounter can involve: Surgeons, anaesthetists, pharmacists, nurses, lab technologists, diagnostic labs and administrative staff.

    Generally, anyone involved in providing medical care to the patient can be guilty of medical negligence. Identifying all liable parties is crucial for a comprehensive medical negligence claim, ensuring that all responsible entities are held accountable for their actions.[7]

    This may include one or more of the following parties:

    1. Physicians and Surgeons:

    It is established law that doctors owe a sacrosanct medical duty of care to their patients, which requires a high degree of skill and competence; otherwise, liability for medical negligence may arise.[8] Doctors hold primary responsibility for diagnosis, treatment decisions, and surgical procedures. They are liable for procedural errors, misdiagnoses, and failure to obtain consent. If a doctor fails to provide the standard of care and causes harm, the doctor may be held liable for damages incurred by the patient.

    2. Nurses:

    They are responsible for the execution of care plans, medication administration, and post-operative monitoring. Negligence occurs through improper monitoring or administrative errors. [9] If a nurse fails to provide proper care and injures a patient, the nurse may be at fault for medical malpractice.[10] Also, if a nurse administered the wrong medication, the nurse may be liable for injuries.[11]

    3. Medical Institutions:

    Liability of medical institutions with respect to medical negligence can be direct liability or vicarious liability. Direct liability refers to the deficiency of the hospital itself in providing a safe and suitable environment for treatment as promised.[12] For example, this will arise where equipment which are expected to be available is not available or is not functional, leading to harm, injury or death of patients. Examples include: a non-functional ambulance, non-maintenance of medical records, and transmission of infections, among others.[13]

    4. Pharmacists:

    The case of Horton v Evans[14] affirmed the principle that Pharmacists are under a duty to take at least some steps to ensure that prescriptions are not inappropriate.[15] In this case, the court ruled that Pharmacists have an obligation to question the correctness of a prescription with the prescribing physician or patient, especially if the patient has had previous prescriptions for the same medication.

    5. Pharmaceutical Companies/Device Manufacturers:

    Liable under product liability principles for defective drugs or medical devices that cause patient harm.[16] Pharmaceutical companies are responsible for producing safe and properly labelled medications. When drugs cause unexpected harm, manufacturers may be held liable.[17]

    Also read: When Machines Fail: Understanding Liability In AI-Driven Medical Errors Within Nigeria’s Healthcare System

    Joint and Several Liability in Medical Negligence

    Joint and several liability is a legal concept that applies to medical malpractice cases involving multiple parties. Joint liability refers to a situation where two or more parties are responsible for a single act of negligence. Several liability, on the other hand, refers to a situation where each party is responsible for their own individual act of negligence. Joint and several liability enables a patient to obtain full compensation from any one or more of the negligent parties involved, without the need to pursue each party individually. This principle simplifies litigation and ensures that the plaintiff can still receive compensation even if some of the defendants are unable to pay their portion.

    By suing multiple defendants in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff improves their chances of a favourable outcome, potentially increases the amount of compensation, and benefits from a more efficient legal process by combining claims in one action. This approach ensures that all liable parties are appropriately held accountable.[18]

    A victim of medical negligence has several avenues for seeking redress. They may initiate a civil lawsuit against the physician or other healthcare providers for alleged tortious conduct. Additionally, the victim can lodge a complaint with the appropriate regulatory authority, such as the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria. In cases involving serious misconduct, the matter can also be reported to the police. If the investigation uncovers evidence of gross negligence, recklessness, or a blatant disregard for the victim’s life, the police may prosecute the offender directly or refer the case to the State Attorney General’s office for possible criminal prosecution in appropriate cases.[19]

     

    Conclusion

    In Nigeria, addressing medical negligence effectively requires looking beyond the doctor. Modern healthcare involves a network of professionals, institutions, devices, and third-party services, each carrying legal duties. For practitioners and patients alike, understanding this chain of responsibility is critical to ensuring accountability, fair compensation, and systemic improvements. True patient safety is a shared responsibility, demanding accountability at every level, from individual practitioners to hospitals.

     

    References

    [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7245980/#cit0002:~:text=Medical%20negligence%20constitutes%20an%20act%20or%20omission%20by%20a%20medical%20practitioner%20which%20falls%20below%20the%20accepted%20standard%20of%20care%20resulting%20to%20injury%20or%20death%20of%20the%20patient

    [2] (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 448, (Pp. 464-465, paras. H- A; 487, paras. F-G)

    [3] https://lawpavilion.com/blog/an-insight-into-medical-negligence-under-nigerian-jurisprudence/#_ftn21

    [4] https://lawpadi.com/sue-medical-negligence-nigeria/ Ojo V. Gharoro & Ors (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 173

    [5] https://spaajibade.com/a-review-of-medical-negligence-in-the-nigerian-healthcare-sector-utilising-the-law-as-a-panacea/#:~:text=Medical%20negligence%20can%20also,liable%20for%20medical%20negligence.

    [6] https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=126067#return77

    [7] https://gohonlaw.com/can-multiple-parties-be-liable-for-your-medical-malpractice-case/

    [8] Otti v. Excel-C Medical Centre Ltd (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1698) 274 (P. 316, paras. E-F)

    [9] https://www.kytrialfirm.com/blog/can-multiple-parties-be-liable-for-medical-errors/#:~:text=while%20nurses%20can%20be%20held%20accountable%20for%20medication%20mistakes%20or%20failure%20to%20monitor%20patients.

    [10] Dickson Igbokwe v. University College Hospital Board of Management (1961) WNLR 173

    [11] https://gohonlaw.com/can-multiple-parties-be-liable-for-your-medical-malpractice-case/

    [12] Agarwal & Agarwal : Medical negligence & hospital’s reponsibility. Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic MedicineVolume 31, Issue 2 June 2009 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/0971097320090221

    [13] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7245980/#cit0031

    [14] [06] EWHC 2808 (Q.B), [220007] P.N.L.R. 17

    [15] Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, Second supplement to the Nineteenth Edition 10-82 Page 66

    [16] https://gohonlaw.com/can-multiple-parties-be-liable-for-your-medical-malpractice-case/

    [17] https://www.kytrialfirm.com/blog/can-multiple-parties-be-liable-for-medical-errors/

    [18] https://gohonlaw.com/can-multiple-parties-be-liable-for-your-medical-malpractice-case/

    [19] https://punchng.com/legal-remedies-available-to-victims-of-medical-negligence/

     

  • Local Content Policies in Nigeria’s Maritime Sector: Impact on Economic Growth

    Local Content Policies in Nigeria’s Maritime Sector: Impact on Economic Growth

    Following Nigeria’s colonial and post-colonial eras, indigenous participation in key economic sectors remained limited, posing a significant challenge to national development and self-reliance. In response, the Nigerian government embarked on a deliberate strategy to foster local capacity by implementing a range of local content policies. These policies aim to promote indigenous involvement across strategic sectors, retain value within the national economy, and reduce dependence on foreign expertise and capital.

    Among the earliest of these initiatives is the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act, 2003, which reserves the commercial carriage of goods and passengers within Nigerian waters exclusively for vessels that are wholly owned, crewed, built, and registered in Nigeria. Administered by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), this Act marked a turning point in Nigeria’s maritime policy, seeking to indigenize coastal shipping activities. While the Act allows for waivers where Nigerian capacity is lacking, these were intended as temporary measures pending local capability development.

    To support the Cabotage framework, the government established the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF), designed to provide accessible funding for indigenous ship owners to acquire and operate vessels that meet Cabotage requirements. Although plagued for years by administrative delays, recent efforts by the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy and NIMASA are aimed at unlocking these funds. A disbursement structure involving twelve Primary Lending Institutions, offering a two-year moratorium and eight-year repayment at single-digit interest, has been introduced to make vessel financing more attainable.

    Building upon this foundation, the Nigerian government enacted the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act (Local Content Act) in 2010, establishing a more expansive and sector-wide approach to local content enforcement. The Act mandates the use of Nigerian human and material resources in all oil and gas activities, spanning procurement, fabrication, engineering, logistics, and marine services. Importantly, it directly affects the maritime sector by requiring that vessels used in oil operations be Nigerian-flagged, crewed, and, where possible, built or maintained locally.

    To oversee implementation, the Act established the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB), which has since issued guidelines regulating maritime logistics in the oil sector. The Board’s work has extended to facilitating the establishment of shipyards, modular refineries, and vessel-financing partnerships, demonstrating a clear link between oil sector local content policy and maritime sector growth.

    In 2021, Nigeria consolidated its oil and gas legal framework through the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). This legislation reaffirmed and extended local content obligations across upstream, midstream, and downstream operations. Section 3 of the PIA retains the mandate of the NCDMB and broadens the application of local content to cover marine services across all oil and gas licenses, leases, and contracts. Consequently, maritime operators are now pivotal to oil-sector compliance, with oil companies required to patronise Nigerian shipping companies, shipyards, and maritime professionals. The PIA represents a shift from mere indigenous participation to value creation through localised infrastructure such as fabrication yards, dry docking facilities, and maritime training institutions.

    Alongside these sector-specific statutes, broader legal instruments have reinforced local content across Nigeria’s economy. The Public Procurement Act, 2007 prioritises local contractors and suppliers in public procurement processes. The Industrial Development (Income Tax Relief) Act offers tax holidays to companies using significant local inputs. Executive Orders 003 and 005, respectively, mandate federal MDAs to prioritise local goods and services and to emphasise indigenous capacity in the execution of projects involving science, engineering, and technology.

    Although other sectors such as power, ICT, mining, and telecommunications have also implemented content development guidelines, it is in the oil, gas, and maritime industries that the economic impact has been most pronounced.

    Local content policies have significantly shaped Nigeria’s maritime sector, the backbone of its oil exports and global trade, accounting for over 90% of international cargo and virtually all offshore oil operations. These policies have generated multiple economic benefits.

    First, they have created employment opportunities and enhanced skills development. The mandatory training and engagement of Nigerian seafarers, marine engineers, naval architects, and logistics personnel have reduced reliance on foreign expertise. Institutions such as the Maritime Academy of Nigeria, along with NCDMB’s Human Capacity Development Programmes, have helped improve workforce quality.

    Second, indigenous marine businesses have flourished under the local content regime. Nigerian-owned companies such as Marine Platforms, Century Group, Nigerdock, etc. have emerged as key players in areas like offshore logistics, bunkering, and ship repair,s creating jobs, retaining capital locally, and strengthening Nigeria’s maritime industrial base.

    Third, the local content framework has facilitated technology transfer and industrial infrastructure growth. Through compulsory partnerships with Nigerian companies, foreign operators have had to share technology and localise operations such as ship maintenance, fabrication, and marine insurance. New shipyards and dry docks developed under public-private partnerships are gradually expanding Nigeria’s technical and strategic capacity in the maritime domain.

    Fourth, these policies have reduced capital flight. Prior to their implementation, offshore operations were dominated by foreign operators, resulting in substantial foreign exchange outflows. Today, vessel chartering, crewing, and port services are increasingly sourced locally, keeping more of the value chain within Nigeria’s economy.

    Finally, these developments have fostered linkages across sectors. As the oil and gas industry integrates local maritime services, related investments have been catalysed in port development, infrastructure, maritime education, and logistics, leading to a multiplier effect that supports broader economic growth.

    Despite these achievements, several challenges persist. Chief among them is access to vessel financing. Although the CVFF exists to address this, it has historically suffered from bureaucratic delays and underutilization. The government’s recent reforms, including clear lending terms and the involvement of financial institutions, are promising but require effective execution.

    Capacity and infrastructure gaps remain another hurdle. Many Nigerian shipyards lack the advanced technology and facilities required for building or servicing complex vessels, especially those for deep water and LNG operations. Without targeted investment in shipbuilding infrastructure and technical training, full compliance with local content mandates will remain elusive.

    Regulatory overlap also hinders implementation. Friction between agencies like NIMASA, NCDMB, and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) can lead to inefficiencies and inconsistent enforcement. A unified and streamlined regulatory approach is essential for better outcomes.

    Additionally, the abuse of waivers granted under the Cabotage Act undermines the spirit of the legislation. Rather than acting as temporary measures to bridge capacity gaps, waivers are often overused, allowing foreign operators to dominate services that Nigerian firms could have undertaken.

    To consolidate the gains of local content policies and drive further maritime sector growth, several strategic steps are recommended. These include the expedited, transparent disbursement of the CVFF to capable Nigerian operators; harmonization of the regulatory functions of NIMASA, NCDMB, and NPA to reduce conflict and enhance policy coordination; stricter enforcement of local content obligations and a significant curtailment of waiver issuances; and support for public-private partnerships to establish modular shipyards, maritime leasing platforms, and training institutions.

    In the longer term, Nigeria should consider establishing a Maritime Content Development Fund, similar to NCDMB’s model, to finance a broader range of maritime activities beyond ship acquisition, including infrastructure and skills development.

    In conclusion, Nigeria’s local content policies anchored by the Cabotage Act, the Local Content Act, and the Petroleum Industry Act are steadily transforming the maritime sector from a dependency-based service domain into a growth engine capable of driving industrialisation, job creation, and capital retention. While challenges remain, the foundation has been laid for the sector to evolve from a mere oil-support function into a standalone pillar of national economic development. With sustained commitment, coordinated regulation, and strategic investment, Nigeria’s maritime industry can become a global leader in indigenous capacity and a catalyst for inclusive, long-term growth.

     

  • Environmental Litigation in Nigeria: Trends, Challenges, and Judicial Activism

    Environmental Litigation in Nigeria: Trends, Challenges, and Judicial Activism

    Environmental litigation in Nigeria has evolved into a powerful though still imperfect tool for promoting environmental justice, corporate accountability, and the protection of communities affected by pollution, resource degradation, and climate risk. Despite the existence of a broad framework of environmental laws and treaties, the practical pursuit of environmental remedies through the courts has been marked by a dynamic interplay of progress, contradictions, and emerging judicial attitudes. From early constitutional gaps to the recent rise of transnational litigation, the Nigerian environmental legal landscape continues to shift, reflecting both the limitations of domestic enforcement and the growing push for justice across borders.

    At the heart of Nigeria’s environmental legal framework lies a patchwork of constitutional, statutory, and treaty-based obligations. The 1999 Constitution, under Section 20, obligates the state to protect and improve the environment. However, because this provision falls within Chapter II (Directive Principles of State Policy), it is non-justiciable and thus not directly enforceable in court. In response, litigants and public interest lawyers have creatively turned to Sections 33 and 34, guaranteeing the rights to life and dignity to anchor environmental claims, arguing that pollution and environmental degradation pose existential threats to human life and dignity. This strategy has also drawn strength from Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (domesticated into Nigerian law), which guarantees the right to a “general satisfactory environment.”

    Statutory foundations for environmental litigation include key legislation such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, which requires thorough environmental impact evaluations for projects likely to affect the environment; the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act, which establishes the primary regulatory agency; the Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provisions) Act, which prohibits the unlawful dumping of hazardous waste; and other sector-specific laws like the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) Act and the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021, both of which impose environmental protection obligations on operators in the oil and gas sector.

    The judicial interpretation and enforcement of these laws, however, have been far from consistent. A defining moment in Nigerian environmental litigation came in 2005, with the landmark judgment in Gbemre & Ors v Shell Petroleum Development Corporation & 2 Ors [2005] FHC/B/CS/53/05 (unreported), where the Federal High Court held that gas flaring by Shell in the Niger Delta violated the applicant’s rights to life and dignity under Sections 33 and 34 of the Nigerian Constitution and Article 4 of the African Charter. The court affirmed that environmental rights are integral to human rights and ruled that environmental degradation, which threatens the quality of life, constitutes a violation of the right to life. This decision established a vital precedent and marked a turning point in the constitutionalization of environmental protection in Nigeria.

    Years later, in 2014, the Court of Appeal adopted a more conservative posture in Opara v. Shell (unreported), refusing to extend constitutional protections to environmental harm. The court held that only direct, personal injury could ground such claims and rejected the broader link between pollution and the right to life. This restrictive approach was echoed again in 2019, in Ajanaku v. Shell (unreported), where the court declined to apply the principles in Gbemre, emphasising strict causation requirements and declining to accept fundamental rights as a basis for environmental claims without compelling personal injury.

    Amid these conflicting interpretations, a significant development emerged in 2019, when the Supreme Court gave its decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt.1666) 518. The Supreme Court in this case expanded the doctrine of locus standi, affirming that civil society organisations could bring actions in the public interest, particularly in cases of environmental harm. More importantly, the court made three seminal findings: first, that the right to life under Section 33(1) of the Constitution encompasses environmental protection, as pollution directly endangers human survival; second, that Section 20 of the Constitution though part of the ordinarily non-justiciable Chapter II can become enforceable when read in conjunction with fundamental rights provisions; and third, that Article 24 of the African Charter, which guarantees the right to a satisfactory environment, is directly enforceable in Nigerian courts. These doctrinal pronouncements by the apex court further entrenched the link between environmental integrity and fundamental human rights.

    In subsequent years, this rights-based approach was reinforced and refined. In Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v Ajanaku & Anr [2021] LPELR-52566 (CA), the Court of Appeal made a critical contribution to Nigeria’s environmental jurisprudence. While the court overturned the Federal High Court’s decision on a narrow procedural point, it nonetheless embraced a progressive and substantive interpretation of environmental rights. Justice Ogbuinya, delivering the lead judgment, stated that a person’s right to life under Section 33 of the Constitution could not be fully realised in the absence of access to a clean and hospitable environment, safe water, air, land, forests, and wildlife. Citing COPW v. NNPC, the court emphasised that socio-economic rights and environmental rights are symbiotically linked to the enforcement of the right to life. This powerful judicial articulation acknowledged that the quality of one’s environment is inseparable from the quality of one’s life, a sentiment that reinforces the legal significance of environmental degradation as a violation of human rights.

    This progressive trend was affirmed and taken further in the decision of the Federal High Court in Chief Isaac Obor-Ntito Torchi & Ors v. Shell Petroleum Development Company & Ors (Unreported Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/05/2020). In this historic ruling, the court recognised that claims under Sections 20 and 33 of the Constitution, and Article 24 of the African Charter, are justiciable and actionable in cases of environmental degradation. The court awarded an unprecedented ₦800 billion in damages, the largest environmental compensation ever granted in Nigeria to affected communities for health hazards, economic hardship, and violations of dignity caused by oil pollution. The decision signals a bold recognition by the judiciary of environmental harm as a constitutional wrong and an actionable violation of both national and international human rights standards.

    Nevertheless, Nigeria’s environmental litigation landscape has not been without its doctrinal setbacks and implementation challenges. While Gbemre, Ajanaku, Torchi, and COPW reflect a growing judicial willingness to enforce environmental rights, other decisions, particularly in earlier years, have reflected a narrower and more technical approach. Some courts have insisted on strict proof of direct personal injury or causation, making it difficult for community-based or public interest litigants to secure relief. The procedural demands of establishing scientific causality in environmental harm cases often exceed the capacity of under-resourced claimants, further complicating access to justice.

    Faced with these domestic obstacles, Nigerian communities have increasingly turned to foreign courts in search of accountability. In Okpabi v. Royal Dutch Shell, decided in 2021 by the UK Supreme Court, the court allowed Nigerian claimants to sue Shell’s parent company in the United Kingdom. It held that the parent company arguably owed a duty of care to communities harmed by the actions of its Nigerian subsidiary, given the degree of control it exercised over its operations. This case is monumental, not only in expanding the reach of environmental litigation but also in signalling that multinational corporations can be held accountable in their home jurisdictions for environmental harm caused abroad.

    Also in 2021, the Dutch case of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) v. Royal Dutch Shell added global momentum to the cause. The Hague District Court ordered Shell to cut its global CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030, finding that the company’s activities contributed to climate change and breached its duty of care under Dutch law and international human rights norms. Though not focused exclusively on Nigeria, this ruling has strong implications for the accountability of multinational oil companies operating in vulnerable regions like the Niger Delta.

    Despite these legal victories, systemic barriers to environmental justice remain. Restrictive interpretations of standing still appear in some courts, despite COPW’s precedent. Regulatory enforcement is weak, with institutions like NESREA, NOSDRA, and NUPRC often underfunded, politically constrained, or lacking independence. There is also a significant enforcement gap: even when judgments are obtained, they are rarely implemented with full force, leaving affected communities without the relief they were promised. The technical complexity of environmental claims, involving expert testimony and scientific data, further compounds the challenges, especially where communities lack access to legal or forensic resources. Litigation costs and judicial delays continue to discourage many meritorious claims.

    Nevertheless, a growing movement of judicial activism provides hope. Judges have begun to incorporate international environmental standards, apply purposive interpretations of constitutional rights, and embrace the principle that a clean and healthy environment is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of life and dignity. The 2009 Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules have also liberalised standing and encouraged more public interest litigation.

    Going forward, Nigeria must take critical steps to consolidate these gains. Constitutional reform is necessary to elevate the right to a clean and healthy environment to a justiciable status. The establishment of specialised environmental courts or tribunals with technical expertise would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental adjudication. Regulatory agencies must be strengthened legally, institutionally, and financially to implement court orders and monitor environmental standards. Finally, a national framework to support public interest environmental litigation, through legal aid, community legal education, and environmental justice funds, would democratize access to the courts.

    In conclusion, environmental litigation in Nigeria has come a long way from the early creative arguments in Gbemre, to the groundbreaking rulings in COPW, Ajanaku, and Torchi, and the transnational successes in Okpabi and Milieudefensie. These decisions highlight the potential of the judiciary to serve as a bulwark against environmental injustice and corporate impunity. Yet, the pathway to consistent, enforceable, and impactful environmental justice requires sustained judicial boldness, institutional reform, and the political will to ensure that environmental rights are no longer theoretical ideals but lived realities for every Nigerian.

     

  • Liability Coverage in Cargo Insurance Contracts: All-Risk vs. Named Perils

    Liability Coverage in Cargo Insurance Contracts: All-Risk vs. Named Perils

    Cargo insurance is an important part of international and domestic trade, offering financial protection against the risks that goods face while in transit. It ensures that when cargo is lost, damaged, or destroyed due to unforeseen events, the owner or party with insurable interest is not left to bear the full financial burden. At the heart of every cargo insurance contract is the issue of liability, that is, who bears responsibility when loss occurs, under what conditions, and to what extent compensation is payable.

    Historically, the concept of cargo/marine insurance predates modern legal systems, with its origins dating as far back as 300 BC when Chinese merchants protected themselves by spreading goods across different ships. Over time, more formalised systems emerged, including Bottomry arrangements and the development of institutions like Lloyd’s of London, which gave cargo/marine insurance a commercial and legal backbone. In modern times, cargo/marine insurance is regulated by laws such as the Marine Insurance Act 1906 in the United Kingdom and its Nigerian counterpart, the Marine Insurance Act 1984. These Acts, which are virtually identical in substance, define a contract of marine insurance as one where the insurer undertakes to indemnify the insured against marine losses as agreed.

    Cargo insurance, a branch of marine insurance, specifically protects goods being transported by sea, land, or air. Its core function is to determine liability and provide financial indemnity when the cargo is exposed to certain risks during transit. There are two primary frameworks through which cargo insurance operates: All-Risk and Named Perils. These two types of coverage reflect different levels of protection and determine the scope of the insurer’s liability.

    All-Risk insurance offers the broadest form of protection. Under this type of policy, the insurer assumes liability for any physical loss or damage to the cargo unless a specific exclusion applies. This means that unless the policy expressly excludes a particular peril such as war, strikes, customs rejection, or delay, the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured. The key advantage of All-Risk coverage is its simplicity during the claims process. The burden is not on the insured to prove that a particular type of peril caused the loss; rather, it is on the insurer to show that the loss falls under an exclusion. As such, All-Risk policies are particularly attractive to shippers of high-value, delicate, or time-sensitive cargo. Despite being more expensive due to their wider scope of liability, these policies offer comprehensive protection and peace of mind.

    In contrast, Named Perils insurance is more limited in scope. Under a Named Perils policy, the insurer is only liable if the loss arises from one of the specific perils listed in the policy. These could include fire, sinking, collision, theft, or storm damage. In this case, the insured must prove that the damage or loss was caused by one of the named perils before they can claim compensation. This type of insurance is often more economical and can be tailored to the particular risks a shipment is most likely to face. For instance, if goods are flammable, a shipper may opt to insure only against fire. If the route is known for rough weather or piracy, specific coverage may be taken out for those risks. While Named Perils policies are more cost-effective, they can lead to disputes during claims if the cause of loss is unclear or unlisted.

    The legal framework surrounding cargo insurance further shapes how liability is managed. The Marine Insurance Act requires the insured to act in utmost good faith, meaning that all material facts about the cargo, route, and risk must be disclosed. Failure to do so renders the contract voidable. The insured must also have an insurable interest in the cargo, that is, a financial stake in its safety or loss. Proximate cause must be established in any claim: the loss must be directly traceable to a peril covered under the policy. The principle of indemnity ensures that the insured is restored, as far as possible, to the position they were in before the loss occurred.

    Another important consideration is the potential for double insurance. If a cargo owner insures the same goods under more than one policy, Section 33 of the Marine Insurance Act comes into play. In such situations, the insured cannot claim more than the actual loss. Instead, the insurers are required to contribute proportionally. This becomes particularly relevant when one policy is an All-Risk policy and the other is a Named Perils policy. Care must be taken to ensure the terms align and that compensation does not exceed the true value of the loss.

    In practical terms, choosing between All-Risk and Named Perils requires careful evaluation of several factors. The nature and value of the cargo are paramount. High-value goods typically warrant broader All-Risk coverage to avoid gaps in liability, while less valuable cargo may only need protection against specific, predictable risks. The likely risks along the shipping route also influence this choice. Cargo travelling through high-risk zones, conflict areas, or politically unstable regions may need wider coverage, whereas cargo on a stable route might be adequately protected under a Named Perils policy. The method of sale also plays a role. For example, in CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) contracts, the seller must procure insurance for the buyer’s benefit, while in FOB (Free on Board) or C&F (Cost and Freight) contracts, the buyer bears the responsibility.

    Claims procedures are also influenced by the type of policy. All-Risk claims are generally more straightforward, requiring less technical argument since coverage is presumed unless excluded. Named Perils claims, however, demand a clearer link between the loss and a named risk, often making the process more complex and time-consuming. Where speed and certainty of recovery are important, All-Risk is often preferred.

    Ultimately, cargo insurance plays a central role in facilitating international trade by transferring and managing the risks of loss during transit. The decision between All-Risk and Named Perils coverage should be guided not just by cost, but by a realistic appraisal of risk exposure, the legal framework of the insurance contract, the value of the goods, and the ease of pursuing claims. While All-Risk policies provide broader protection and more predictable outcomes, Named Perils policies offer a leaner, more targeted approach suitable for well-understood risks. By aligning the insurance cover with the actual risk profile of the cargo and voyage, parties can ensure that liability is properly managed, losses are fairly compensated, and commercial relationships remain secure in the face of unforeseen disruptions.

     

     

  • Behind the Corporate World: Examining Layers of Professional Negligence in Nigeria’s Largest Companies and the Legal Frame Work Governing it

    Behind the Corporate World: Examining Layers of Professional Negligence in Nigeria’s Largest Companies and the Legal Frame Work Governing it

    INTRODUCTION

    In Nigeria’s dynamic corporate landscape, professional negligence remains a critical issue that undermines trust, operational efficiency, and public welfare. The corporate world encompasses a broad spectrum of organisations, including private and public companies, partnerships, and institutions engaged in commercial or service-oriented activities. A company, as defined under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, is a legal entity formed and registered to conduct business or provide services, often with a profit motive or public service objective.

    Professional negligence occurs when individuals or entities within these organisations fail to exercise the standard of care expected in their field, resulting in harm or loss. While this phenomenon spans various sectors, finance, construction, and legal services, this article narrows its focus to medical negligence within Nigeria’s largest hospitals and medical companies, where lapses can have life-altering consequences.

    By examining the layers of negligence in these institutions and the legal framework governing them, this article highlights systemic challenges, judicial precedents, statutory provisions shaping accountability in Nigeria’s healthcare sector, and recommendations to improve accountability and curb medical negligence in Nigeria’s healthcare sector.

    PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE IN THE CORPORATE WORLD: A GENERAL OVERVIEW

    Professional negligence in Nigeria’s corporate world manifests across industries, from financial mismanagement in banks to engineering flaws in construction firms. It involves a breach of duty by professionals, whose actions fall below the standard expected of their peers, causing damage to clients or stakeholders. In the corporate context, negligence often stems from inadequate oversight, poor training, or systemic inefficiencies. For instance, a company’s failure to implement robust internal controls may lead to fraudulent financial reporting, exposing it to legal and reputational risks. However, in no sector is professional negligence more consequential than in healthcare, where hospitals and medical companies operate as corporate entities with a heightened duty of care. The consequences of negligence in this sector, for instance, misdiagnosis, surgical errors and delayed treatment, can result in irreversible harm, making it a focal point for legal and regulatory scrutiny.

    MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE IN NIGERIA’S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

    Nigeria’s largest hospitals are pivotal to the nation’s healthcare delivery. These institutions, often structured as corporate entities, employ thousands of professionals and serve millions of patients annually. However, they face systemic challenges, including understaffing, outdated equipment, and inadequate training, which contribute to medical negligence.

    Medical negligence is defined as the failure of a healthcare professional to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to a patient. Common instances include incorrect diagnoses, failure to attend promptly to emergencies, and surgical errors. For example, in University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Management Board & Ors v. Hope Nnoli (1994) 8 NWLR Pt.363 – 376, the court held that administering the wrong medication constituted negligence, emphasising the hospital’s vicarious liability for its staff’s actions. Similarly, in Ibokwe v. University College Hospital Board of Management (1961) W.N.L.R. 173, a nurse was instructed to keep watch over the deceased patient who, after childbirth, had suspected psychosis, but the former failed to do so. The patient jumped down from the fourth floor of the hospital and died. The court held that the hospital was liable for the negligent acts of its employees under the principle of vicarious liability, reinforcing corporate accountability.

    The layers of negligence in these institutions are multifaceted. At the operational level, individual practitioners may err due to incompetence or fatigue. At the corporate level, hospital management often fails to enforce compliance with professional standards or invest in modern infrastructure. For instance, a 2024 study noted that 33.3% of Nigerian patients reported additional injuries due to medical treatment, highlighting systemic deficiencies. These issues are compounded by a lack of public awareness, poverty, and reluctance to pursue legal redress, which allows negligence to persist unchecked.

    Also read: Environmental Justice Beyond Time Constraints: The FREP Rules and the Enforcement of Human Rights in Nigeria. (Part 1)

    On May 14, 2021, prompted by a letter from Dr. Olisa Agbakoba SAN, senior partner at Olisa Agbakoba Legal, a coroner’s inquest (Suit No. COR/APO/003/2021) was convened to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs. Adepeju Ugboma. Her husband alleged that her death resulted from questionable circumstances and negligence by the medical staff at Premier Specialist Medical Centre. On April 25, 2021, the 41-year-old passed away at Evercare Hospital, Lagos, following a hysterectomy for fibroids performed at Premier Specialist Medical Centre. After the procedure, she experienced severe abdominal pain and low blood pressure, leading to her admission to the ICU, where her condition continued to deteriorate. Transferred to Evercare Hospital for specialised care, she arrived without a pulse, and resuscitation efforts failed. The coroner determined that Premier Specialist Medical Centre breached its duty of care to the deceased, holding the hospital vicariously liable for the negligence of its medical staff.

    LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

    The legal framework for addressing medical negligence in Nigeria is robust yet underutilised. The Medical and Dental Practitioners Act (MDPA) 2004 is the primary legislation regulating medical practice, establishing the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN). The MDCN enforces the Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria (2008), which outlines professional standards and defines negligence, such as failure to promptly attend to a patient or making an incorrect diagnosis when clinical signs are evident. Violations may lead to sanctions, including suspension or deregistration. Additionally, the National Health Act 2014 reinforces patients’ rights to quality care, while the Criminal Code Act 2004 criminalises reckless negligence causing harm, with penalties up to one year’s imprisonment.

    The Act also established the Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigating Panel & the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. The Panel is charged with carrying out preliminary investigations of any allegation of infamous conduct in professional respect made against a medical practitioner, and where such allegations have merit, the Panel forwards the case to the Tribunal for trial.

    Judicial precedents further shape the legal landscape. In Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 2 All England Reports 118 at 122, adopted in Nigeria, the court established the “Bolam Test,” stating that a medical professional is not negligent if their actions align with practices accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion. However, in Chin Keow v. Government of Malaysia (1964) 30 M.L.J. 322, failure to inquire about a patient’s medical history led to liability, underscoring the need for due diligence. In Nigeria, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself,” aids plaintiffs in proving negligence when the harm implies a breach, as seen in Mahon v. Osborne (1939) 1 All ER 535, where leaving cotton wool in a patient’s abdomen post-surgery warranted liability.

    Despite these frameworks, challenges persist. Proving causation is difficult, especially with pre-existing conditions, and securing expert witnesses is hindered by professional reluctance to testify against peers. Moreover, cultural attitudes and poverty deter litigation, resulting in underreported cases.

    Also read: Environmental Justice Beyond Time Constraints: The FREP Rules and the Enforcement of Human Rights in Nigeria. (Part 2)

    RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

    1. The Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigating Panel and the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal should be led by specialised personnel possessing the necessary expertise and knowledge to effectively carry out their responsibilities.
    2. The Code of Ethics for medical practitioners in Nigeria should be reviewed to include stricter penalties for negligence and breaches of the duty of care to patients.
    3. Government agencies should increase public awareness campaigns about patients’ rights in cases of medical negligence.
    4. Expansion of funding beyond government facilities by the state government; The state government could assist private hospitals within their domain in sourcing repayable funds for critical equipment, enabling them to provide better services to citizens.
    5. Adopt International Standards: Incorporate frameworks like the World Health Organisation’s patient safety guidelines into Nigerian law to align with global standards.
    6. Mandatory Licensing and Accreditation: Enforce stricter licensing requirements for healthcare facilities, ensuring compliance with minimum standards for equipment, staffing, and protocols. Regular audits of hospitals like Premier Specialist Medical Centre could prevent substandard care.
    7. Continuous Professional Development: Mandate ongoing training for medical professionals to keep pace with advancements in medical practice and reduce errors due to outdated knowledge or skills.
    8. Streamline Coroner’s Inquests: Reform the coroner system to expedite inquests into suspicious deaths, with clear timelines and mandatory reporting of findings to relevant regulatory bodies.
    9. Mandatory Incident Reporting: Require healthcare facilities to report adverse incidents, such as post-surgical complications, to a national database overseen by the MDCN or the Federal Ministry of Health. This would enable tracking of systemic issues and improve accountability.
    10. Patient Safety Standards: Develop and enforce national patient safety guidelines, including protocols for post-operative care, to prevent cases where severe complications were not adequately managed.
    11. Whistleblower Protections: Protect healthcare workers who report negligence or unsafe practices within their institutions, fostering a culture of transparency.

    CONCLUSION

    Medical negligence in Nigeria’s largest hospitals and medical companies reflects broader corporate governance failures, exacerbated by systemic healthcare challenges. While the legal framework, which comprises the MDPA, National Health Act, and judicial precedents, provides avenues for redress, its effectiveness is limited by enforcement gaps and societal barriers. To address this, hospitals must invest in staff training, modern equipment, and robust compliance systems. Regulatory bodies like the MDCN should enhance oversight and transparency in disciplinary processes. Additionally, public awareness campaigns can empower patients to assert their rights. By fostering accountability and systemic reform, Nigeria’s healthcare sector can rebuild public trust and align with global standards, ensuring that corporate entities prioritise lives over liabilities.