An Examination of Online Dispute Resolution of Commercial Transactions in Nigeria: Principles, Practices and Procedures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68050/JAMS.2026.393Keywords:
Online Dispute Resolution, Electronic Commerce, Commercial TransactionsAbstract
The rapid expansion of electronic commerce and digital financial services in Nigeria has generated a corresponding significant increase in commercial disputes that are transacted, and must therefore be resolved, entirely or substantially online. Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, comprising litigation and conventional alternative dispute resolution processes, have proven increasingly inadequate to meet the demands of speed, cost-efficiency, and cross-border accessibility that characterises modern digital commerce. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has emerged globally as the preferred mechanism for addressing disputes arising from electronic commercial transactions, offering technology-assisted processes of negotiation, mediation, and arbitration conducted through digital platforms without the necessity of physical attendance.
This research examines the principles, practices, and procedures of ODR as applicable to commercial transactions in Nigeria. It analyses the existing legal and regulatory framework governing ODR in Nigeria, evaluating the contributions of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, the Evidence Act 2011, and the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act 2015.
While identifying the significant legislative gaps that presently impede the full development of ODR in Nigeria. The research further undertakes a comparative analysis of international ODR frameworks, particularly the UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution and the European Union ODR Regulation, drawing lessons relevant to the Nigerian context. Hence, this research adopts a doctrinal and comparative methodology, drawing on primary sources including Nigerian legislation, judicial decisions, and international instruments, as well as secondary sources comprising academic texts, journal articles, and institutional guidelines.
However, the study concludes with recommendations aimed at establishing a coherent, effective, and internationally aligned ODR framework for Nigeria.
References
1 Nigerian Communications Commission, 'Industry Statistics' (2024) < https://www.ncc.gov.ng> Accessed 12 June, 2026; Statista, 'E-Commerce in Nigeria' (2024) <https://www.statista.com> Accessed 12 June, 2026.
2 Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, 'Annual Report 2023' (FCCPC 2023) 14-17.
3 G. Ezejiofor, The Law of Arbitration in Nigeria (Longman 1997) 3-5.
4 E. Katsh and J. Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace (Jossey-Bass 2001) 1-3.
5 C. Rule, Online Dispute Resolution for Business (Jossey-Bass 2002) 13-15.
6 E. Katsh and J. Rifkin (n 4) 93-95.
7 UNCITRAL, 'Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution' (2017) <https://uncitral.un.org> Accessed 12 June, 2026.
8 Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (2013) OJ L165/1.
9 O. Abdulhameed, 'The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023: A New Dawn for Dispute Resolution in Nigeria' (2023) 10 Nigerian Journal of Arbitration 1, 4.
10 E. Katsh and C. Rule, Online Dispute Resolution: A Guide to ODR (American Bar Association 2016) 7.
11 T. Schultz, 'Online Dispute Resolution: An Overview and Selected Issues' (2002) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Paper 2–3.
12 C. Rule (n 5) 45–47.
13 G. Kaufmann-Kohler and T. Schultz, 'Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice' (Kluwer Law International 2004) 1, 23–25.
14 S.J. Ware, Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution (3rd edn, West Academic Publishing 2016) 12.
15 E. Katsh and Rifkin J (n 4) 35.
16 O. Rabinovich-Einy and E. Katsh, 'Digital Justice: Reshaping Boundaries in an Online Dispute Resolution Environment' (2012) 1 International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution 5, 9-11.
17 T. Schultz (n 11) 8-10.
18 C. Rule (n 5) 55-58.
19 E. Katsh and C. Rule (n 10) 45-48.
20 S. J. Ware (n 14) 267-270.
21 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 8.
22 G. Kaufmann-Kohler and T. Schultz (n 13) 55-57.
23 Ibid 58-60.
24 E. Katsh and J. Rifkin (n 4) 93-100.
25 Ibid 100-103.
26 O. Rabinovich-Einy and E. Katsh (n 16) 15-18.
27 S. J. Ware (n 14) 2-4.
28 C. Ejifor, 'Online Dispute Resolution and E-Commerce in Nigeria: Challenges and Prospects' (2022) 14 Journal of International Arbitration 45, 48.
29 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 1–3.
30 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, s 2.
31 Ibid.
32 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, s 88.
33 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 12-13.
34 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from
Mediation 2018.
35 Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, s 1.
36 FCCPC (n 2) 20-22.
37 Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, s 167.
38 FCCPC (n 2) 23.
39 Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act 2015, long title.
40 Ibid, ss 6-9.
41 Ibid, ss 17-19.
42 Evidence Act 2011, Part III.
43 Evidence Act 2011, s 84.
44 C. Ejifor (n 28) 55-57.
45 Ibid 58.
46 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 15.
47 C. Ejifor (n 28) 60-62.
48 Ibid 63-65.
49 Ibid 65.
50 S. J. Ware (n 14) 156-158.
51 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, ss 15, 25, 55.
52 C. Rule (n 5) 102-104.
53 C. Ejifor (n 28) 50-52.
54 E. Katsh and C. Rule (n 10) 90-92.
55 O. Rabinovich-Einy and E. Katsh (n 16) 20-22.
56 Nigerian Communications Commission (n 1).
57 C. Ejifor (n 28) 67-69.
58 S. J. Ware (n 14) 160-162.
59 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, s 29.
60 G. Kaufmann-Kohlerand T. Schultz (n 13) 80-82.
61 O. Rabinovich-Einy and E. Katsh (n 16) 25-27.
62 S. J. Ware (n 14) 165.
63 T. Schultz (n 11) 20-22.
64 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 18.
65 G. Kaufmann-Kohlerand T. Schultz (n 13) 110-112.
66 C. Ejifor (n 28) 70-72.
67 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, s 56; Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New
York, 1958), art V.
68 United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation 2018, art 3.
69 C. Ejifor (n 28) 75-77.
70 Ibid 78.
71 Ibid 79-80.
72 Central Bank of Nigeria, 'Consumer Protection Framework' (CBN 2016) 5-7.
73 Ibid 8-10.
74 Nigerian Communications Commission, 'Consumer Complaints Portal' <https://www.ncc.gov.ng> accessed 12 June 2026.
75 FCCPC (n 2) 25-27.
76 Ibid 28.
77 Lagos Court of Arbitration, 'LCA Arbitration Rules 2020' <https://www.lcaarb.org> accessed 12 June 2026.
78 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 20-21.
79 C. Rule (n 5) 125-128.
80 G. Kaufmann-Kohler and T. Schultz (n 13) 130-132.
81 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, ss 33, 88; s 2.
82 E. Katsh and C. Rule (n 10) 112-115.
83 UNCITRAL Technical Notes (n 7) para 24-26.
84 S. J. Ware (n 14) 280-283.
85 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, ss 60-65.
86 G. Kaufmann-Kohlerand T. Schultz (n 13) 145-147.
87 Ibid 148-150.
88 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, s 44.
89 C. Ejifor (n 28) 85-87.
90 Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, s 56; New York Convention (n 67), art V.
91Singapore Convention (n 68), art 3; O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 22.
92 UNCITRAL Technical Notes (n 7) preamble.
93 Ibid para 10-15.
94 Ibid para 16-30.
95 Ibid para 35-40.
96 Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 (n 8), art 1.
97 Ibid, art 5.
98 Ibid, art. 14.
99 Ibid, art. 19.
100 Ibid, art. 10.
101 Nigerian Communications Commission (n 1).
102 C. Ejifor (n 28) 95-97.
103 Ibid. 98-100.
104 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 25-26; Ohochukwu v Access Bank Plc [2009] 12 NWLR (Pt 1156) 510.
105 Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Partenreedri MS Nordwind [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt 66) 520; Ezejiofor G (n 3) 200–202.
106 New York Convention (n 67), art III; Singapore Convention (n 68), art 14.
107 C. Ejifor (n 28) 103-105.
108 Ibid 106.
109 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 28.
110 Ibid 29-30.
111 C. Ejifor (n 28) 110-111.
112 Ibid 112.
113 FCCPC (n 2) 30.
114 O. Abdulhameed (n 9) 31.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated. Authors retain copyright of their work and grant JAMS the right of first publication.
