The Supreme Court on Friday, March 6, 2026, threw out Emerging Markets Telecommunications Services Ltd’s appeal against a $43.3 million arbitral award, branding the case “totally devoid of merit” and hitting the telco, doing business as 9Mobile, with N10 million in costs.
A five-man panel led by Justice Tyjani Abubakar dismissed 9Mobile’s appeal No. CA/ABJ/660/2023, affirming judgments of both the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court in favour of AFDIN Ventures Ltd, DIRBIA Nigeria Ltd and four others.
“The appeal by Emerging Markets Telecommunications Services Limited was totally devoid of merit, thus deserved to be and is thereby dismissed,” Justice Abubakar ruled. The court awarded N10 million costs against 9Mobile in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and another N10 million to the 3rd and 4th Respondents.
The dispute traces back to Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/288/2018 filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, where AFDIN and DIRBIA sought refunds of $13,300,910 and $30,030,040 respectively from the defendants, including 9Mobile.
Following an arbitration clause in the governing agreements, Justice Nyako of the Federal High Court referred the matter to arbitration on December 11, 2019, with parties’ consent. A Sole Arbitrator conducted proceedings, delivering a partial award on jurisdiction on September 2, 2021, and a Final Award on September 26, 2022, with typographical corrections issued October 18 and 31, 2022.
“By the Final Award, the Appellant, alongside the 5th and 6th Respondents, were ordered, jointly and severally, to refund to the 1st and 2nd Respondents the sums earlier set out in this Judgment,” the Supreme Court noted.
9Mobile had attacked the award at the Federal High Court, Lagos, on October 31, 2022. Meanwhile, AFDIN and DIRBIA moved in Abuja on January 18, 2023, for recognition and enforcement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Federal High Court, Abuja, recognized the award. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision on November 22, 2024.
At the Supreme Court, 9Mobile argued the arbitral proceedings were a nullity for want of jurisdiction and that the lower court wrongly struck out its first issue. The apex court rejected both.
Justice Abubakar said the Supreme Court is “not only the final Court in the land, but also as a policy Court with the responsibility of ensuring that vexatious and incompetent appeals that have the tendency of ridiculing the country in the eyes of the International Community are discouraged.”
He added: “The Court must not encourage procedural indiscipline.”
The judgment also flagged 9Mobile’s disobedience. The Federal High Court had, on June 2, 2023, stayed proceedings pending appeal but ordered 9Mobile to deposit the judgment sum within one month. It didn’t. The Court of Appeal dismissed 9Mobile’s challenge to that order on October 10, 2024, and no further appeal was filed.
“Ordinarily, the combined effect of the Appellant’s failure to comply with the order to make deposit of the Judgment sum and the mandatory requirements of Order 6 Rule 3(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024, compel the apex Court to sustain the preliminary objection and terminate the appeal,” Justice Abubakar said. “Respect for positive orders of Court by litigants remains necessary and a party in contempt of an order of Court is not entitled to audience.”
On privity of contract — 9Mobile’s claim that it wasn’t a formal signatory to the arbitration clause — the court was blunt. “The Appellant herein having fully benefited from the transaction leading to the dispute cannot later hide under the principles of the doctrine of privity of contract to evade liability.”
“The Sole Arbitrator found, upon concrete and cogent evidence, that the Appellant was ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the investment transaction; that it received substantial sums derived from the very Offer Terms and Custodial Agreements containing the arbitration clause; and that its role was central to the dispute,” the court said.
“The Appellant’s insistence on formal signature as the sole gateway to arbitral jurisdiction reflected a 19th century rigidity inconsistent with contemporary commerce,” Justice Abubakar held. “The doctrine of privity was developed to protect parties from being burdened by obligations they never undertook. It was never intended as a shield for those who actively participated in and benefited from a contractual arrangement while seeking to evade its dispute resolution mechanism.”
The court stressed its limited role in arbitration: “The Court is not vested with the authority to sit on appeal over the findings of fact or conclusions of law reached by arbitrators merely because it might have arrived at a different conclusion. The duty of the Court is not to examine whether the arbitrators were right or wrong in law, but to scrutinise the award itself and determine whether… they acted within the bounds of the law as they themselves understood it.”
“Arbitration is chosen precisely to avoid protracted judicial re-litigation. As this Court has repeatedly emphasised, parties who voluntarily elect to submit to arbitration are bound by the award for better or worse, unless the award is vitiated on recognised statutory grounds. The doctrine of Pacta sunt servanda which portends that agreements must be kept is the hallmark of arbitration,” the ruling read.
The court also noted the commercial weight of the matter: “Proceedings of this nature are not ordinary civil contests… They are sui generis, they implicate the sanctity of arbitral awards, commercial finality, and Nigeria’s standing within the international arbitration regime.”
Justices Mohammed Lawal Garba, Haruna Simon Tsammani, Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru and Jamilu Yammana Tukur concurred.
With the appeal dismissed, the $43.3 million award against 9Mobile stands — plus N20 million in Supreme Court costs.
Stay ahead with the latest updates! Join The ConclaveNG on WhatsApp and Telegram for real-time news alerts, breaking stories, and exclusive content delivered straight to your phone. Don’t miss a headline — subscribe now!
