Conflict of Laws in Torts: A Theoretical Analysis of the Rule in Philips v Eyre in Nigeria

Abstract

The misunderstanding of difference in the choice of law and choice of jurisdiction in conflict of laws in Nigeria has remained a major source of concerns for academic and legal practitioners especially in the area of law of torts. This lack of clear distinction in this area of law by Nigerian courts is borne out of the conception of the rule in Phillips v Eyre; the English law guiding principle on the difference between the two in tort actions as a rule of jurisdiction rather than that of choice of law. While choice of jurisdiction rule of Nigerian courts in matters having foreign elements is itself problematic, adding Phillips v Eyre as a jurisdiction rule has no doubt, further compounded the problem. The Nigerian courts have always treated the application of Philips as a choice of law instead of jurisdiction rule even at the level of the apex court. This paper presents a critique of this approach, and a criticism of this practice which has been adopted by the Nigerian courts that it results in a fair amount of uncertainty and unpredictability.Considering the federal nature of Nigeria, the paper recommends “no conflict theory”should be adopted by the Nigerian courts.