Share Transfer Standoff in Nigeria: Can a Company Owner Really Block It?

The question of whether a company owner in Nigeria can unilaterally prevent a share transfer isn’t a simple yes or no. Nigerian company law, particularly the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA 2020), sets the stage, but the company’s own rulebook – the Articles of Association – and any shareholder agreements often dictate the real outcome.

For public companies, shares are generally designed to move freely. Trying to block a sale is usually a non-starter. However, most businesses in Nigeria are private companies. Here, things get more interesting. CAMA 2020 grants private companies the ability to put restrictions on share transfers. You see these restrictions spelled out in the Articles of Association, shareholders agreements, or both.

Think of it like this: while an owner might try to delay, control, or place conditions on a transfer, completely prohibiting it without a solid legal reason is difficult. What kind of restrictions are considered valid under Nigerian law? Several common mechanisms are worth noting.

Right of First Refusal (ROFR) is a frequent player. This means that before a shareholder can sell to someone outside the existing group, they must first offer those shares to the current shareholders. It’s a preemptive right, giving insiders a chance to maintain control.

Then there’s the directors’ power to refuse registration. This one is a bit trickier. If the Articles of Association explicitly grant directors the authority to refuse a transfer, they can do it. The kicker? They have to provide a legitimate reason. “I don’t like the buyer” won’t cut it.

Lock-in agreements, or non-transfer agreements, are typical in startups and investment deals. Shareholders commit to not transferring their shares for a defined period. This promotes stability, especially in the early days.

Finally, there are conditions precedent. These are specific requirements, for example, board approval, consent from investors, or a completed valuation, that must be satisfied before the transfer can proceed.

Yet, a refusal can be deemed unlawful in certain circumstances. Imagine a scenario where directors block a transfer out of spite, or if they fail to provide any reasonable explanation for their decision. It may also be deemed unlawful if the reason is found to be mala-fide – in bad faith. That’s where things get interesting, and potentially litigious.

An unfairly prejudiced shareholder has options. Sections 354–356 of CAMA 2020 offer recourse for “unfairly prejudicial conduct.” What can they do?

First, they can petition for unfair prejudice. If successful, a court could order the company to purchase the aggrieved shareholder’s shares at a fair price, force the transfer to go through, or even restructure the company’s management.

Specific performance is another avenue. If a shareholder agreement explicitly mandates a transfer, a court can compel the other party to comply. This is especially relevant when dealing with carefully drafted contracts.

Arbitration or mediation become relevant if a dispute resolution clause is in place. These methods offer a potentially faster and less public means of resolving disagreements than traditional litigation.

Automatic transfer mechanisms, like drag-along, tag-along, or put options, can bypass some objections if they’re agreed upon in advance. These clauses are designed to facilitate specific exit scenarios.

Let’s consider a couple of common scenarios. First, if the Articles of Association allow free transfers, the company owner has no legal leg to stand on. They simply cannot block the sale. Second, imagine the Articles grant directors broad discretion to approve or deny transfers. The directors can refuse a transfer, if they furnish reasons for doing so.

In my experience, a lot hinges on the specifics of the company’s documentation. A well-drafted shareholders’ agreement that anticipates potential disputes can save a lot of headaches down the road. Ambiguity is an invitation for conflict.

From what I’ve observed, smaller, closely-held companies often operate on handshake deals and informal understandings. This can work for a while, but it becomes a major liability when disagreements arise. The time to clarify transfer restrictions is before the need to transfer arises.

The reality is that shareholders need to understand the fine print. Reading those Articles of Association and any shareholder agreements isn’t just a formality; it’s essential for protecting your interests. Ignorance of these documents is no excuse in a legal dispute.

Furthermore, remember that the courts generally frown upon actions that are designed to unfairly disadvantage minority shareholders. While a majority shareholder certainly wields power, that power isn’t absolute. They have to act in good faith and with due regard for the rights of others.

Share transfer disputes can be costly and time-consuming. Seeking experienced legal counsel is crucial when navigating these waters. A lawyer specializing in corporate law can review the relevant documents, assess your options, and represent your interests effectively.

Ultimately, while a company owner might try to obstruct a share transfer, their ability to do so depends on a complex interplay of factors. Understanding the legal landscape and having the right documentation in place are critical for a smooth transfer process or for fighting an unfair blockage. This is about more than just moving shares; it’s about protecting your investment and upholding the principles of fairness in corporate governance.

Read Original

Keywords: Nigeria share transfer, CAMA 2020, Articles of Association, shareholder agreements, right of first refusal, directors refusal, unfair prejudice, corporate governance