Parties find it difficult to determine which Nigerian High Court should intervene in the appointment of arbitrators due to conflicting judicial precedents. This perennial challenge has defied any legal solution. Considering relevant case law, this article examines the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) vis-à-vis the Nigerian Constitution. The main argument is that the Nigerian Constitution read alongside the ACA confers the Federal High Court with additional jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators regardless of which court has jurisdiction concerning the underlying dispute. There are also uncertainties regarding the intervention jurisdiction of Nigeria's National Industrial Court to appoint arbitrators. Currently, no other court can exercise intervention jurisdiction in employment disputes. This article analyses recent decisions of the National Industrial Court and argues that this Court can only intervene to appoint arbitrators where both parties request the appointment in a pending action before the Court. It is also argued that decisions concerning the appointment of arbitrators through judicial intervention can be appealed.

由于司法先例相互矛盾，当事方发现很难确定哪个尼日利亚高等法院应介入任命仲裁员。这项长期的挑战无视任何法律解决方案。考虑到相关判例法，本文针对尼日利亚宪法审查了《仲裁与和解法》（ACA）。主要论点是，与ACA一起阅读的《尼日利亚宪法》赋予联邦高等法院更多的管辖权，以任命仲裁员，而不论哪个法院对根本纠纷拥有管辖权。尼日利亚国家工业法院任命仲裁员的干预管辖权也存在不确定性。目前，没有其他法院可以对雇佣纠纷行使干预管辖权。本文分析了国家工业法院的最新判决，并认为，只有当事双方在法院的未决诉讼中要求任命时，该法院才能进行干预以任命仲裁员。也有人认为，关于通过司法干预任命仲裁员的决定可以上诉。