In the recent decision in Continental Transfert Technique Limited (CTTL) v The Federal Government of Nigeria (and Others) [2010] EWHC 780 (Comm), the High Court in London ruled on the ongoing dispute over an arbitration award made in Nigeria in 2008. In its judgment dated 30 March 2010, the court held that, if the Nigerian government wished to stay the enforcement of the award, it must pay £100 million security into court. This followed a decision by the US District Court for the District of Colombia rejecting the Nigerian government's request to dismiss enforcement proceedings. Both courts were highly critical of the Nigerian government's delaying tactics which were seen as being likely to cause "real prejudice" to CTTL.

The original claim arose out of a contract to supply electronic residence cards that was arbitrated under the laws of the Federation of Nigeria. An award was made on 14 August 2008 for approximately £140 million in favour of CTTL. As Nigeria is a party to the New York Convention, CTTL was able to apply to enforce the award in England under section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The English court gave permission on an interim basis and, as the defendants made no application to set aside the interim order, a final order was made on 24 June 2009.

However, during this time the defendants had brought an appeal against the award in a Nigerian court. They applied for an injunction to prevent enforcement and for an extension of time in order to challenge the award. The court in Lagos granted the requested injunction and extension of time without hearing from CTTL, despite the fact that five months had passed since the deadline for such an application. The defendants then argued that the pending application to challenge the award in Nigeria entitled them to have any enforcement orders set aside by the English courts, and it was this question that was the subject of the recent decision.

The High Court held that Nigeria's challenge did not have a real prospect of success and that there were clear indications of delaying tactics, as was also suggested in the decision of the US court. Therefore, whilst it would grant the requested stay in the interests of allowing the defendants to show they were serious about challenging the award, the court required substantial security to be paid by 28 April. CTTL did not oppose the granting of a stay, so long as this security was paid.