Collective Redress & Class Actions 2025

1. Policy Development of Collective Redress/Class Action Mechanisms

1.1 History and Policy Drivers of the Legislative Regime

Class actions have evolved in Nigeria through court rules and judicial decisions. However, the concept is still evolving in Nigerian jurisprudence and is restrictive in nature.

Historically, the class action procedure existed under Order 13 Rule 15 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules of 1972 (the "Lagos 1972 Rules") and continues to be retained in subsequent re-enactments of the Lagos Rules in later years. Order 15 Rule 13 (1) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 (the "Lagos 2019 Rules"), which are the extant rules, provides for class action in various areas of law (see 2.2 Scope of Areas of Law to Which the Legislation Applies and for details).

Other High Courts in the various states in Nigeria also mirrored the Lagos Rules by providing for class actions in their various rules of court.

The emergence of the class action framework at the federal level in Nigeria can be traced back to the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 (the "FHC Rules 2009"), which provided for a class action procedure specifically for IP rights cases. The Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 (the "FHC Rules 2019"), which are the extant rules, provide for class action with a limited scope – namely, only for disputes involving trade marks, copyright or patents and designs. This is in line with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (the "Nigerian Constitution"), which vests the Federal High Court with the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain IP-related actions. 

Order 13 Rule 11 (5) of the National Industrial Court Civil Procedure Rules 2017 provides for class actions in terms that are in pari materia with the rules of the various High Courts of the Nigerian states and those of the Federal High Court.

The major policy drivers/reasons for class actions in Nigeria have been aptly identified by the Supreme Court in the case of Adedeji v CBN (2022) LPELR – 57809 SC. Although the action is a representative action, the rationale proffered by the Supreme Court of Nigeria is apposite to the discourse concerning class actions. The apex court held that it is a salutary and common-sense provision (in the rules of court in Nigeria) that, where there are numerous parties, it will be extremely cumbersome and frustrating if all those interested parties are joined as a named party. The Supreme Court of Nigeria held in this case that it would be difficult to determine a case justly by insisting that everyone interested should be named on the writ as a party. For the sake of convenience, the courts in Nigeria therefore approve of representative actions. Thus, given a common interest or a common grievance, a representative action is in order if the relief sought is in its nature beneficial to all whom the named plaintiffs propose to represent. Class actions enjoy a broader perspective, as class members need not have the same interest.

1.2 Basis for the Legislative Regime, Including Analogous International Laws

Generally, just as the principles of common law and equity were inherited from England, so also were the rules of the old Supreme Court of Nigeria fashioned out of those applicable in the English county courts. When the old Supreme Court was federalised, giving way to High Courts in each of the Nigerian regions and in what was then the Federal Capital of Lagos, these High Courts made their individual rules of court; these rules were substantially based on those of the defunct court. The rules of each High Court in the country therefore derived from the rules of procedure of the county courts in England.

However, it is interesting to note that ‒ with regard to class actions – it does not appear that provisions in the Nigerian rules of court were modelled after the regime in the UK, as class actions are not allowed in the UK.

In the USA, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed R Civ P 23) ("Rule 23") is the principal source of law relating to class actions in US federal courts. Most US states have enacted standards analogous to Rule 23 that govern class action proceedings in their respective state courts. However, in 2005, the US Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (28 USC Section 1332 (d)). This marks a salient difference from the Nigerian regime, in which there is no legislation passed by the National Assembly (Parliament or Congress or legislative arm of government) that legislates solely for class actions.

The provisions of the Nigerian rules of court and Rule 23 in the USA are similar. However, some of the provisions of Rule 23 in the USA that are not contained in the Nigerian rules of court are as follows.

• The court must be satisfied that prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:
  1. inconsistent or varying adjudications with regard to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class action; or
  2. adjudications with regard to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not party to the individual adjudications or would impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 
• There is a provision for a certification order whereby the court certifies the action as a class action, defines the class members, appoints the class counsel who must meet certain requirements, defines the class and the class issues, claims or defences. Such an order may be amended before judgment.

1.3 Implementation of the EU Collective Redress Regime

Nigeria is not an EU member state and is therefore not subject to the EU collective redress regime. Nigeria's jurisdiction operates under its own legal framework and regulations for class action lawsuits.

2. Legal Framework

2.1 Collective Redress and Class Action Legislation

There are currently no principal laws governing collective redress/class actions in Nigeria. However, these types of action are recognisable and permissible by virtue of the provisions of existing civil procedure rules of the High Courts of the various states in Nigeria, the Federal High Court, and the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.

2.2 Scope of Areas of Law to Which the Legislation Applies

The applicable civil procedure rules of various courts in Nigeria determine the areas of law such rules permit for class action lawsuits. Some of these are mentioned here.

Order 15 Rule 13 (1) of the Lagos 2019 Rules provides that class actions can be instituted in the following areas of law:

• the administration of estates;
• properties subject to a trust;
• land held under customary law as family or community property; and
• the construction of any written instrument, including a statue.

As mentioned in 1.1 History and Policy Drivers of the Legislative Regime, Order 9 Rule 4 (1) of the FHC Rules 2019 provides that class actions can be instituted with regard to trade marks, copyright or patents and designs.

Order 13 Rule 11 (1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Civil Procedure Rules 2017 (the "NICN Rules") empowers one person or more to sue or be sued on behalf of or for the benefit of persons so interested with regard to labour and employment law matters. The NICN Rules do not expressly refer to such actions as class actions but as actions by numerous persons with same interest in a suit.

Order 13 Rule 15 (1) of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 expanded the scope of the class action regime for suits instituted in the Federal Capital Territory by providing that class actions can be brought for proceedings concerning:

• the administration of estates;
• property subject to a trust;
• land held under customary law as family or community property;
• the construction of any written instrument, including a statute;
• torts; or
• any other class action.

For an order of class action to be granted, Nigerian courts must ascertain that the class of persons cannot be ascertained (or readily ascertained) or be found.

2.3 Definition of Collective Redress/Class Actions

There is no statutory definition of a class action or collective redress save for the provisions in procedural rules of the various courts in Nigeria. The common denominator in the various rules of court is that class actions are actions where one or more persons are appointed by the judge to represent that person(s) or class or members of the class in a lawsuit where the person, class or some members of the class interested in the lawsuit cannot be ascertained or cannot readily be ascertained – or, if ascertained, cannot be found ‒ or for purposes of expediency and efficiency if they can be ascertained or found. 

Nigerian courts have also interpreted what constitutes a class action. In the cases of Abraham Adesanya v President of Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC 69 and Gallaher Ltd & Another v British American Tobacco Co Ltd & Others (2015) 13 NWLR (Part 1476) 325, it was held that a class action must be centred on the principle of commonality – ie, the claims and defences of the representative/s must arise from common factual questions or legal interests shared with the larger group in order for the larger group to be protected.

In the case of Babalola v Apple Inc (2021) 15 NWLR 193, the appellate court ‒ in accordance with Black's Law Dictionary – defined a "class action" as "a lawsuit in which the court authorises a single person or a small group of people to represent the interests of a larger group, specifically, a lawsuit in which the convenience either of the public or of the interested parties requires that the case be settled through litigation by or against only a part of the group of similarly situated persons and in which a person whose interests are or may be affected does not have an opportunity to protect his or her interests by appearing personally or through a personally selected representative, or through a person specially appointed to act as a trustee or guardian".

In this case, the appellate court further pronounced on the peculiarity of class action as follows: "In a class action, the class must be so large that individual suits would be impracticable. There must be legal or factual questions common to the class. The claims or defences of the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class."

To view the full article, click here.

Originally published by Chambers And Partners.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.