Case Digest: Federal Republic of Nigeria and another v Williams [2025] EWHC 2217 (Comm)

<center><span class="news-text_italic-underline">Judgment Date: 26 August 2025</span></center>

‍

Background

The Federal Government and Attorney General of Nigeria (“<span class="news-text_medium">N</span>”) applied to set aside a default judgment obtained by Dr Williams (“<span class="news-text_medium">W</span>”) in 2018 for approximately US $15 million plus costs, alleging that it had been procured fraudulently. Pending determination of that application, N sought an anti-enforcement injunction to restrain enforcement proceedings brought by W in New York. N argued that allowing enforcement before resolution of the fraud claim would be vexatious and oppressive.

Court’s Reasoning

The court confirmed that English law recognises the jurisdiction to grant anti-enforcement injunctions to restrain enforcement of foreign judgments abroad, although such relief is rarely granted due to comity and delay considerations. Henshaw J emphasised that these concerns carried less weight where the injunction sought relates to enforcement of an English judgment, as the objective is to safeguard the integrity of the English court’s own processes.

On the merits, the judge held that N’s challenge to the default judgment appeared strong. There was a compelling case that enforcement in New York before trial of the fraud claim would be oppressive and risk irreparable prejudice to N. By contrast, any prejudice to W if enforcement were restrained was limited to delay, mitigated by accruing interest and N’s cross-undertaking in damages. Importantly, the New York court had already stayed its proceedings pending the outcome of the anti-enforcement injunction application in England, which supported the appropriateness of granting relief.

Conclusion

The court granted the anti-enforcement injunction, marking what appears to be the first instance of an English court restraining enforcement abroad of its own judgment. The decision underscores the willingness of the court to intervene where enforcement would undermine the fairness of proceedings and the integrity of its processes.

Key Takeaways

• The decision confirms that anti-enforcement injunctions are available not only against foreign judgments but also in relation to English judgments.
• Protecting the integrity of the English court’s own procedures is a decisive factor in assessing whether to grant relief.
• A strong prima facie case on the merits and a risk of irreparable prejudice are essential to establishing the balance of justice in favour of an injunction.
• The approach of the foreign court (here, New York) may be relevant; the fact that it stayed proceedings pending the English decision reinforced the appropriateness of relief.

‍

<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Federal Republic of Nigeria and another v Williams [2025] EWHC 2217 (Comm)</span> (26 August 2025, Henshaw J).