A London commercial court has granted Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd, a Chinese firm, final charging orders over two residential properties owned by Nigeria.
The court’s decision comes as the Chinese firm seeks to enforce a $70 million arbitration award against the Nigerian government.
The ruling was delivered by Lisa Sullivan, a master at the court, after Nigeria’s previous attempts to challenge the jurisdiction of the orders.
The legal battle stems from a 2010 agreement in which Zhongshan, through its parent company Zhuhai Zhongfu Industrial Group Co. Ltd, secured rights to develop a free trade zone in Ogun State, Nigeria.
Read Also: Presidency blasts, uncovers Chinese firm’s attempt to seize presidential jets
Chinese firm misled French court on presidential jets, we weren’t notified before order – Ogun
In 2011, Zhongshan established a Nigerian entity, Zhongfu International Investment (NIG) FZE, to manage the project under the authority of the Ogun State government.
However, tensions escalated in July 2016 when Zhongfu accused the state government of abruptly terminating its appointment and attempting to install a new manager for the free trade zone.
The dispute led to Zhongfu initiating an investment treaty arbitration under the bilateral investment treaty between China and Nigeria (the China-Nigeria BIT).
The arbitration tribunal ruled in favor of Zhongshan, awarding the company approximately $70 million in compensation, citing Nigeria’s breach of its obligations under the BIT.
In January 2022, Zhongshan sought to enforce the arbitration award in the UK courts.
Nigeria argued for state immunity, but this defense was rejected by High Court Judge Sara Cockerill, who ruled that Nigeria had abused the time frame for appealing the arbitral award.
In July 2023, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the $70 million arbitration award in favor of Zhongshan.
Following this, the Chinese company obtained interim charging orders on two properties in Liverpool owned by the Nigerian government.
Nigeria opposed making the orders final, citing sovereign immunity, as the properties were allegedly intended for consular services and diplomatic purposes.
Despite these claims, Sullivan’s judgment emphasised that the properties had been leased to residential tenants and had not been used for diplomatic activities for the past 34 years.
She highlighted evidence of the properties’ ‘dilapidated’ state, noting that no consular activities were taking place there.
As a result, the court ruled that the properties do not benefit from sovereign immunity.
Furthermore, Sullivan dismissed Nigeria’s arguments regarding improper service under the State Immunity Act and allegations of inadequate disclosure by Zhongshan.
She also rejected Nigeria’s claim that the Chinese firm was engaging in multiple enforcement actions, stating that creditors are entitled to pursue various enforcement methods to recover their debts.
Squire Patton Boggs’ Timi Balogun, representing Nigeria, expressed disagreement with the decision, arguing that it overlooked complex public international law issues, particularly concerning state immunity.
Balogun indicated plans to appeal the ruling to higher courts to address these important legal questions.
As of the time of this report, the Nigerian government has not released an official statement on the matter.
