{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01509433962264151, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018867924528301886, 'mean_word_length': 5.656903765690377, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments in Nigeria: A Case of Unnecessary Judicial Pragmatism?

Until recently, there was considerable confusion concerning the enforcement of foreign money judgments under Nigerian statutory provisions. In particular, uncertainty and confusion surrounded the applicability of two statutes intended to facilitate the enforcement of judgments from foreign countries deemed to provide reciprocity of treatment to the enforcement of Nigerian judgments. The Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 19221 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 19602 are the two principal statutes concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments in Nigeria. Since 2003, a spate of judicial decisions in both the Nigerian Court of Appeal and Supreme Court has provided clarification on the applicability of these two statutes. However, the clarification remains incomplete and the decisions of these courts on a crucial point amount either to an inaccurate interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions, or to a conscious or unconscious exercise of judicial pragmatism. The 1922 Act and the 1960 Act are based on, and essentially copied from, two United Kingdom (UK) statutes, the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. Assistance may therefore be found in the jurisprudence and developments in relation to the UK statutes. This article provides a comparative analysis of the two Nigerian statutes and draws from the UK experience of the application of the respective equivalent statutes.