Mr D Stephenson, Counsel For the First v Nigeria High Commission and 1 other — 2021

This was an open preliminary hearing on state immunity. The tribunal refused the Second Respondent's last-minute application to postpone, holding that service through the FCO diplomatic channel to the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs satisfied s12 SIA 1978. It also held that the Nigeria High Commission had no separate legal personality from the Federal Republic of Nigeria, that the State was the correct respondent, and that the High Commission was to be removed as a respondent.

On the evidence, Mr Animashaun's work as a commissionaire and security guard, and Ms Antonza's work in secretarial, accounts and immigration-related roles, was found to be ancillary and supportive. The tribunal accepted their evidence that they did not carry out diplomatic functions, did not have access to confidential government information, and did not work in diplomatic areas. Their roles were therefore not exercises of sovereign authority.

The tribunal also found that the dismissals followed a directive from Abuja to reduce local staff numbers, but rejected the submission that this was a sovereign recruitment policy. Applying Benkharbouche and the restrictive doctrine of state immunity, it held that the Federal Republic of Nigeria did not have state immunity in relation to the Claimants' EU-law claims, so those claims could proceed. The Claimants withdrew their domestic law claims, and those claims were dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy was determined at this stage.