Assessing the efficacy of forum selection agreements in Commonwealth Africa

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Published date: 01 April 2021
• Author: Coleman, T.E.
• Date: 01 April 2021
• Pages: 1-40
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v7/i2a1
• Citation: (2020) 7(2) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 1

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v7/i2a1

1

ASSESSING THE EFFICACY OF

FORUM SELECTION AGREEMENTS IN

COMMONWEALTH AFRICA*

Theophilus Edwin Coleman**

Abstract

Any international commercial agreement has the potential to be the subject of a

dispute. In resolving international commercial disputes, parties to a contract are at

liberty to choose any dispute resolution mechanism that best serves and meets their

commercial interests. Generally, parties to an international commercial contract may

resort to courtroom litigation or choose an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

mechanism as a method of resolving their transnational disputes. Underlying

almost every international commercial contract, therefore, is a very primary question

about where, by whom and how the parties prefer their disputes to be litigated. The

response to this question depends on whether parties prefer traditional courtroom

litigation, or an ADR mechanism. In most instances, countries put in place dispute

resolution regimes that seek to afford contracting parties the liberty to submit their

disputes to a foreign forum or an arbitral tribunal for legal redress and/or a remedy.

However, while the efficacy of resolving international disputes through arbitration

has garnered immense international and domestic support, the submission of

disputes by parties to a foreign forum through a forum selection agreement is

regarded with much ambivalence in most countries. This article assesses the efficacy

of forum selection agreements in Commonwealth Africa. It appraises the judicial

approach of courts in Commonwealth African countries relative to the essence and

effect of forum selection agreements. This article argues and calls for a higher degree

of judicial commitment to the juridical choices of private individuals who are party

to an international commercial contract, especially with regard to forum selection

agreements.

Keywords: international dispute resolution; Commonwealth Africa;

jurisdiction clauses; forum selection agreement; party autonomy; freedom of

contract; international commercial contracts

Résumé

Tout accord commercial international peut potentiellement faire l’objet d’un

différend. Lors de la résolution des litiges commerciaux internationaux, les parties

à un contrat sont libres de choisir tout mécanisme de résolution des litiges qui sert

et répond le mieux à leurs intérêts commerciaux. En règle générale, les parties à

* This article is based on aspects of the author’s doctoral dissertation. See Coleman, T.E.

Contractual Freedom and Autonomy in Commonwealth Africa: Theoretical Foundations and Practical

Perspectives (unpublished LLD thesis, University of Johannesburg, 2020).

** BA LLB LLM LLD, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for International Comparative

Labour and Social Security Law (CICLASS), Faculty of Law, University of Johannesburg, Republic

of South Africa.

(2020) 7(2) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 1

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

2 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN AFRICA VOL 7, NO 2, 2020

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v7/i2a1

un contrat commercial international peuvent recourir à une procédure judiciaire

ou choisir un mécanisme alternatif de règlement des différends comme méthode

de résolution de leurs différends transnationaux. À la base de presque tous les

contrats commerciaux internationaux, il y a donc une question primordiale pour les

parties: celle de savoir où, par qui et comment elles préfèrent que leurs différends

soient réglés. La réponse à cette question dépend de la préférence des parties soit

pour les procédures judiciaires traditionnelles soit pour des méthodes alternatives

de règlement des conflits (MARC). Dans la plupart des cas, les pays mettent

en place des régimes de règlement des différends qui visent à donner aux parties

contractantes la liberté de soumettre leur ou leurs différends à une instance étrangère

ou à un tribunal arbitral pour réparation ou un recours juridique. Cependant,

alors que l’efficacité de la résolution des différends internationaux par l’arbitrage a

recueilli un immense soutien international et national, la soumission de différends

par les parties à un forum étranger par le biais d’un accord de choix de juridiction

est accueillie dans la plupart des pays avec une ambivalence accrue. Cet article

évalue l’efficacité des accords de choix de juridiction en Afrique du Commonwealth.

L’article évalue l’approche judiciaire adoptée par les tribunaux des États africains

du Commonwealth par rapport à l’essence et à l’effet des accords de choix de

juridiction. L’article plaide pour et appelle à un degré plus élevé d’engagement

judiciaire envers les choix juridiques des particuliers dans un contrat commercial

international, notamment en termes d’accords sur le choix de juridiction.

Mots clés: Règlement des Différends Internationaux; Afrique du

Commonwealth; Clauses de Juridiction; Accord de Choix de Jur idiction;

Autonomie des Parties; Liberté Contractuelle; Contrats Commerciaux

Internationaux.

Introduction

Underlying almost every international commercial contract is the

fundamental question of where, by whom and how contracting parties

will resolve disputes that may arise from their contract.1 The foregoing

question is a vital point of consideration, primarily because every

commercial agreement, whether international or domestic, may be

susceptible to disputes or litigation. In resolving international commercial

disputes, parties to a contract have the liberty to choose any dispute

resolution mechanism that best meets their commercial needs. It is

generally accepted that parties to a contract have the freedom to expressly

stipulate in their agreement whether they prefer to resolve their disputes

1 Bor n, G.B. International Commercial Arbitration 2 ed (2014) 70; Sealy, L.S. & Hooley, R.J.A.

Commercial Law: Texts, Cases and Materials 4 ed (2009) 10; Van Lith, H. International Commercial

Litigation: Uniform Rules for Contract Disputes (2009) 8; Coleman, T.E. International Commercial

Arbitration: A Critical Review of the Legal Position in Ghana (unpublished LLM thesis, University of

Johannesburg, 2017) 5.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

ASSESSING THE EFFICACY OF FORUM SELECTION AGREEMENTS IN

COMMONWEALTH AFRICA 3

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v7/i2a1

via courtroom litigation, or through an alternative dispute resolution

(ADR) mechanism.

The legal framework in many countries affords parties the freedom to

submit disputes arising out of their commercial agreement to a foreign

forum or an arbitral tribunal for legal redress or a remedy. However,

while the efficacy of resolving transnational commercial disputes

through arbitration and other ADR mechanisms has garnered immense

international and domestic support, the submission of disputes by parties

to a contract to a foreign or domestic forum through a forum selection

agreement is received with scepticism in most countries.

The purpose of this article is to assess the efficacy of forum selection

agreements or jurisdiction clauses in international commercial contracts

in Commonwealth Africa.2 In addressing this purpose, this article discusses

the principle of party autonomy. The article also appraises the historical

developments of forum selection agreements. Further more, this article

highlights the judicial approach of courts in Commonwealth Africa to

forum selection agreements or jurisdiction clauses. The article argues that,

in furtherance of the principle of party autonomy, courts in Commonwealth

Africa should give effect to freely agreed terms in contracts, including

forum selection agreements, because such an approach will best serve the

commercial needs and meet the legitimate expectations of parties to an

international commercial contract. The article concludes with a call for

a higher degree of judicial commitment by courts in Commonwealth

Africa to the juridical choices of parties to an inter national commercial

contract, especially in the case of forum selection agreements.

Party autonomy and freedom of choice

Meaning and essence of party autonomy

The freedom that parties to a contract have to choose a forum to litigate

their disputes is anchored in the concept of party autonomy. The concept

of party autonomy is a generally accepted principle in contemporary

private international law (or international private law or conflict of

laws) and international commercial arbitration (transnational dispute

resolution).3 The principle of par ty autonomy is a direct consequence of

2 This article focuses on five Commonwealth African countries, namely, South Africa, Nigeria,

Ghana, Kenya and Tanzania.

3 Johns, F.E. ‘Performing party autonomy’ (2008) 71 Law and Contemporary Problems 243

at 249–250; Michaels, M. ‘Economics of law as choice of law’ (2008) 71 Law and Contemporary

Problems 73 at 74; Struycken, T.H.D. ‘Party autonomy’ (2004) Collected Courses of The Hague Academy

of International Law 311 at 355; Pound, T.W. ‘Party autonomy – past and present’ (1970–1971)

12 South Texas Law Journal 214 at 214. See generally also Borchers, P.J. ‘Categorical exceptions

to party autonomy in private international law’ (2008) 72 Tulane Law Review 1645; Weintraub,

R.J. ‘Functional developments of choice of law for contracts’ (1984) Collected Courses of The Hague

Academy of Private International Law 239 at 271; Maultzsch, F. ‘Party autonomy in European private

international law: Uniform principle or context-dependent instrument?’ (2016) 12 Journal of Private

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd