CONTRACTUAL OUSTER OF COURT’S JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT

Authors

Downloads

PlumX DOI based Article Level Metrics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55662/ALPPR.2021.605

Keywords:

Contractual, Ouster, Jurisdiction, International, Commercial

Abstract

The article examined the Contractual Ouster of Court’s Jurisdiction in International Commercial Agreement given the controversy it engendered and the varying interpretation given to it by the court. The principle that parties could freely agree on the terms of their contract is true. It is also correct that no parties by their contract could bind a third party. The doctrine of the principle of privity of contract is that contracts are private between parties to it and non-admissive of the meddlesome interloper. If this is the case that parties cannot bind a third party, the innuendo then is that a party ought not to bind a court from exercising its jurisdiction. The paper identified three schools of thought concerning an international commercial agreement in the Law of Carriage of Goods by sea. The paper stressed and emphasized the Ingenuity of the Nigerian Supreme Court in the Case of Sonner Nigeria Ltd. and Anor v Partenreedri M.S. Norwind and Anor.

Readership Data

🌐

Refreshing Cached Analytics Data

The cached analytics data has become stale and journal.thelawbrigade.com is making a fresh request to fetch the latest data from Google Analytics. This may take 20-30 seconds depending on the server response time from Google Analytics. Please do not close the browser during this time. We appreciate your patience.

References

i Azikwe U. Onyia, F (2017) “The Growing Trend Of Foreign Jurisdiction Clauses” retrieved on the 10th day of

September 2020 from www.uuno.org ; Keyes, M.(2015) Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private

International Law, Global Studies in Comparative Law volume 37;

ii Supra

iii (1958) 1 ALL E.R. 333 at p. 335.

iv (1871) ST.R.QD 75.

v

(1970) 123 C.L.R. 418.

vi per Earle J. in Gott v Grandy 2 E & B 845 at p 847.

vii See Bramwell B. in Stadhard v Lee 3 B & S 3 6 4 a t p 3 7 2 .

viii (1969) vol. 1 Lloyds L.R. 237

ix (1987) All N.L.R. p. 548

x Supra

xi Supra

xii Supra

xiii (Supra)

xiv At p. 575

xv Supra

xvi (1958) 1 AI E.R. 333 at p 335

xvii (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt.1114) p. 509.

xviii Federal High Court, Lagos in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1155/98; (2005) LCN/1794 (C.A)

xix (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 520; (1987) 1, All N.L.R. 548)

xx The Gold Coast & Ashanti Electric Power Dev. Corp. Ltd. v. A.G. of The Gold Coast (1937) 4 WACA 217.

See all S.E.S. Ltd. v. Maersk (Nig). Ltd. (2001) 17 NWLR NWLR (Pt. 719) 572 and Brawal Shipping (Nig.) Ltd.

v. F.I. Onwadike CO. Ltd. (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 678) 387 at 407, were cited as authorities.

Citation Metrics

Published

07-04-2021

License

Copyright © 2026 by

The copyright and license terms mentioned on this page take precedence over any other license terms mentioned on the article full text PDF or any other material associated with the article.

How to Cite

“CONTRACTUAL OUSTER OF COURT’S JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT”. Asian Law & Public Policy Review, vol. 6, Apr. 2021, pp. 40-60, https://doi.org/10.55662/ALPPR.2021.605.

Citations List

Similar Articles

1-10 of 36

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.