What Happens When Your Employer Goes Insolvent? The Nigerian Context
WHAT HAPPENED · ILLUSTRATIVE COMPOSITE · PRIVATE EMPLOYER
The employer in this composite is a company incorporated under CAMA. That matters: as the second half of this article explains, nothing in the sequence below can happen to a ministry, department or agency.
The call came from the employer's solicitors on a Tuesday. The company had entered administration and an administrator had been appointed. Work was to cease immediately.
The contractor was owed a substantial sum in certified but unpaid amounts, and had further committed expenditure — materials on order, subcontractors mobilised — that could not now be recovered. It had continued working through three missed certificates, hoping the position would resolve.
Two things then became clear that nobody on the contractor's team had considered before signature. A statutory moratorium now restricted what the contractor could do about any of it. And in the queue for whatever the administration realised, the contractor stood behind every secured creditor, the costs of the process itself, and a list of preferential debts.
What CAMA 2020 changed
The reform. Nigerian corporate insolvency law was substantially reformed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 (Act No. 3 of 2020, commenced 7 August 2020), whose long title records that it repeals the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The change most relevant to a contractor is that Nigeria moved from a framework oriented almost entirely towards liquidation to one that also provides for rescue: Company Voluntary Arrangements in Chapter 17, sections 434 to 442, and administration in Chapter 18, sections 443 to 549.
Why you may still not meet one. One practical constraint explains why most Nigerian contractors have still never dealt with an administrator. On the Nigerian commentary, an administrator must be a qualified insolvency practitioner under section 447(1), and the qualifying conditions in section 705 are cumulative rather than alternative: a relevant degree, at least five years' post-qualification insolvency experience, membership of BRIPAN or another body recognised by the Corporate Affairs Commission, and authorisation from the Commission itself. There is also a known drafting conflict between section 705 and the definition in section 868(1), which the Companies Regulations 2021 address at regulation 24. The consequence is a small accredited pool — so a distressed Nigerian employer is still more likely to produce a receiver or a liquidator than an administrator, and the rescue machinery is less available in practice than on the page.
Scope and sources. This article addresses CAMA 2020, the Public Procurement Act 2007, the FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction 2017 (2nd edition) and JCT Standard Building Contract with Quantities 2016. The FIDIC and JCT provisions are read from the forms themselves, and the Public Procurement Act sections from the text of the Act. The CAMA section numbers and headings are taken from the official Federal Republic of Nigeria Gazette text; where this article describes what a CAMA subsection does rather than merely citing it, that description rests on Nigerian professional commentary and is identified as such. Administration is new enough in Nigeria that the courts have not yet built substantial jurisprudence around it. The case above is a constructed composite.
The moratorium — section 480
What it does. Section 480 of the Act is headed 'Moratorium on other legal process' and sits within the group of provisions dealing with the effect of administration. On the Nigerian commentary, once administration takes effect restrictions apply to the enforcement of security and to the commencement or continuation of legal proceedings, execution, distress and other legal process against the company or its property, without the consent of the administrator or the permission of the court.
What it stops. For an unsecured creditor such as an unpaid contractor, the practical effect is that the routes you would instinctively reach for are closed. Presenting a winding-up petition, commencing or continuing proceedings, levying execution, exercising a right of forfeiture by peaceable re-entry, repossessing goods held under hire-purchase — the moratorium suspends them. Secured creditors are likewise restrained from taking steps to enforce their security.
Why it exists. The moratorium is not hostility to creditors; it is the mechanism that makes rescue possible, because a company cannot restructure while individual creditors dismantle its assets. But the contractor's position is that the window for unilateral action closes the moment administration begins — which is precisely why the useful steps are the ones taken beforehand.
The queue — section 657, and where a contractor stands in it
The statutory ranking. Section 657 is headed 'Preferential payments' and sits in Chapter 24, the provisions applicable to every mode of winding-up. Subsection (1) lists the debts paid in priority to all other debts — local rates and charges, certain taxes, wages and salaries, and accrued holiday remuneration among them. Subsection (6)(a), on the reported wording, goes further: the claims of secured creditors rank in priority to all other claims, including any preferential payment and including the expenses of the winding-up itself. Subsection (6)(b) places equity holders last.
Where that puts you. An unpaid contractor holding certified but unpaid sums, with no security, is an unsecured creditor. It proves its claim in the liquidation and shares pari passu with other unsecured creditors in whatever remains after the secured creditors, the costs of the process, and the preferential debts have been met. That is the position, and it is worth stating plainly rather than dressing up with a recovery percentage.
And a note on the figures you will see quoted. A note on figures. Percentages of the 'unsecured creditors typically recover x per cent' kind circulate widely and are almost never sourced to Nigerian data. No such figure is cited here, because none could be verified. The ranking above is the reliable point: a contractor without security is at the back of a queue that has already been substantially emptied.
Two provisions that surprise people. Two further provisions are worth knowing by name. Section 577 is headed 'Avoidance of attachments' and operates on attachment, sequestration, distress or execution put in force against a company after the commencement of winding-up. Section 658 is headed 'Fraudulent preference' — so a last-minute payment extracted from a distressed employer carries claw-back risk rather than certainty.
FIDIC Sub-Clause 2.4 — narrower than it is usually described
The clause everyone recommends. Sub-Clause 2.4 is routinely recommended as the contractor's early-warning tool for employer solvency, and it is a genuinely useful provision. It is also consistently described more loosely than it reads. The clause has three distinct limbs, and the distinction between them decides whether you can actually use it.
Limb one — disclosure in the Contract Data. First, a disclosure requirement at the outset: the Employer's arrangements for financing the Employer's obligations under the Contract shall be detailed in the Contract Data. That is a document to read at tender stage, and on many contracts the entry is thin or absent — which is itself information.
Limb two — the Employer's duty to notify. Second, a duty on the Employer to volunteer bad news. If the Employer intends to make any material change to those financial arrangements — material meaning affecting the Employer's ability to pay the part of the Contract Price remaining to be paid at that time as estimated by the Engineer — or has to do so because of changes in the Employer's financial situation, the Employer shall immediately give a Notice to the Contractor with detailed supporting particulars.
Limb three — the Contractor's right to request. Third, and this is the limb most often misdescribed, a conditional right for the Contractor to ask. The Contractor may request evidence — and the Employer shall, within 28 days after receiving that request, provide reasonable evidence that financial arrangements have been made and are being maintained which will enable the Employer to pay the part of the Contract Price remaining to be paid — but only if one of three things has happened.
The three triggers. The three triggers are specific. The Contractor receives an instruction to execute a Variation with a price greater than ten per cent of the Accepted Contract Amount, or the accumulated total of Variations exceeds thirty per cent of the Accepted Contract Amount. Or the Contractor does not receive payment in accordance with Sub-Clause 14.7. Or the Contractor becomes aware of a material change in the Employer's financial arrangements of which it has not received a Notice under the Sub-Clause.
What is not a trigger. Read that list and notice what is absent. General commercial unease is not a trigger. Market rumour is not a trigger. A contractor who is simply worried about an employer, with no large Variation, no missed payment and no knowledge of a material change, has no right under Sub-Clause 2.4 to demand evidence. The clause is a response to defined events, not a licence to audit the employer whenever confidence dips — and advice that presents it as the latter sets contractors up to make a request the Employer is entitled to refuse.
Why this still matters. The practical consequence is better news than it sounds. The second trigger is non-payment under Sub-Clause 14.7, which means the very first missed certificate opens the right to request. The contractor in the composite worked through three. One would have been enough, and the request would have had to be answered within 28 days.
The public employer — a different risk, under a different law
Why it does not apply. Everything above operates on companies. CAMA's rescue and winding-up machinery applies to companies incorporated or registered under the Act, and a federal or state ministry, department or agency is not one. An MDA cannot enter administration, cannot be wound up, and has no section 657 queue — so a contractor working for government is not exposed to any of the mechanisms this article has so far described. The distinction is not academic: a large share of Nigerian construction turnover is public, and a contractor who has read the insolvency literature has read about a risk it does not carry.
The exception that catches people. The exception is the government-owned company. Where a public entity has been incorporated as a limited liability company — as many parastatals, state investment vehicles and special purpose companies are — it is a company under CAMA like any other, and the whole of the analysis above applies to it. The question is not whether your employer is government-connected. It is whether your employer is incorporated.
What replaces it. What replaces insolvency risk on public work is appropriation risk, and it has a different shape. The money is not lost; it is unreleased. Certificates are issued and sit unpaid across a budget year, cash-backing lags appropriation, and the project competes for release against everything else in the vote. The employer does not disappear, which means the debt does not evaporate either — but the contractor finances the gap, and on a long programme the financing cost can exceed the margin.
What the Public Procurement Act actually gives you
Section 37 — the sixty-day clock. Most contractors know the Act as the thing that governs how they won the job. It also contains the payment protection they are least likely to be using. Section 37 provides that payment for the procurement of goods, works and services shall be settled promptly and diligently; that a payment outstanding more than sixty days from submission of the invoice is a delayed payment; that all delayed payments shall attract interest at the rate specified in the contract document; and that all contracts shall include terms specifying the interest for late payment of more than sixty days.
And the trap inside it. Read the fourth limb again, because it is the one with teeth at tender stage. The Act requires the interest term to be in the contract. If the conditions you are offered are silent on the rate, the statutory entitlement in subsection (3) has nothing to attach to — interest is payable at the rate specified in the contract document, and an unspecified rate is an argument rather than a sum. Raising that at tender clarification costs nothing. Raising it after eight months of unpaid certificates costs you the point.
Sections 16(1)(b) and 16(2) — funding and the certificate. Two further provisions are worth knowing before signature. Section 16(1)(b) requires procurement to be based only on procurement plans supported by prior budgetary appropriations, and provides that no procurement proceedings shall be formalised until the procuring entity has ensured that funds are available. Section 16(2) goes further on payment: above the Bureau's prior review thresholds, no funds shall be disbursed from the Treasury, the Federation Account or any bank account of a procuring entity unless the payment is accompanied by a Certificate of 'No Objection' to the contract award issued by the Bureau.
How to use it. That pair is the closest thing public work has to FIDIC Sub-Clause 2.4. It is not a right to demand evidence, and nothing in it obliges the MDA to show you its budget line. But it tells you what to ask for: the procurement plan and appropriation the award rests on, and whether the Certificate of No Objection has been obtained. A project being procured ahead of its appropriation is the public-sector equivalent of a thin Contract Data entry.
Sections 35 and 36 — security runs one way. On security, the Act works in the employer's favour rather than yours. Section 35(1) permits a mobilisation fee of not more than fifteen per cent, and requires it to be backed by an unconditional bank guarantee or an insurance bond for national competitive bidding, or an unconditional bank guarantee for international competitive bidding. Section 35(2) provides that once a mobilisation fee has been paid, no further payment shall be made without an interim performance certificate. Section 36 makes a performance guarantee a precondition for the award of any contract on which a mobilisation fee is to be paid, and it shall not be less than ten per cent of the contract value. Every one of those instruments secures the employer against you. There is no statutory counterpart securing you against the employer, which is why the fifteen per cent and the interest term are the two commercial points worth pressing hardest.
The federal standard conditions — do not assume FIDIC
The assumption to check. The single most expensive assumption a contractor can make on Nigerian public work is that it has a FIDIC-style right to suspend for non-payment. Sub-Clause 16.1 is a FIDIC provision. It is not a feature of Nigerian construction law and it is not present in every form used here.
What is in use. Several distinct sets of conditions are in circulation, and they do not agree with each other. There is the General Conditions of Contract for the Procurement of Works in Nigeria 2011, the Federal Ministry of Works Standard Conditions of Contract for road works 1999, the FIDIC forms on donor and lender-funded work, and the standard bidding documents issued by state procurement bureaux, which are built on conditions titled for works of civil engineering construction. The state documents examined for this article — Lagos State, April 2013, and Plateau State, August 2017 — both carry a clause group headed 'Default of MDA' at clause 69, including a clause 69.4 headed 'Contractor's Entitlement to Suspend Work', with 69.3 on payment on termination and 69.5 on resumption.
And the forms that may give you nothing. On the published Nigerian commentary, the position under the 2011 General Conditions and the 1999 Ministry of Works conditions is materially less favourable than that — the contractor's remedy for non-payment is said to be termination rather than suspension, with suspension by the contractor treated as a default in its own right. This article does not cite clause numbers for either form, because the primary text of neither could be obtained and a clause number taken from commentary is exactly the citation that gets edited into a wrong one. The proposition is reported here as commentary, and it is reported because the direction of it matters even if the detail needs checking.
What to do about it. So the instruction is specific and it is not satisfied by reading this article. Identify which conditions your contract actually incorporates, find the clause dealing with the employer's default, and read what it entitles you to do. If it entitles you to terminate but not to suspend, then suspending is a breach and the graduated route this article recommends on FIDIC does not exist on your contract. You need to know that before the third missed certificate, not after it.
Enforcement, if it comes to that. One further asymmetry closes the picture. Where a private employer fails to pay, judgment and execution follow in the ordinary way. Where a public employer fails to pay, section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act requires the Attorney-General's consent before funds in the custody or control of a public officer are attached by garnishee proceedings. On the Nigerian commentary the requirement is narrower than it is often stated — the Supreme Court has held that it is not engaged merely because the garnishee is a government institution or because public funds are involved, the question being whether the funds are in a public officer's custody — and its constitutionality has been questioned in a recent separate opinion without being decided. It remains contested procedural ground. The practical reading is unchanged: a judgment against a public employer is the beginning of a recovery process, not the end of one.
Note on the fourth column. The suspension row is marked not uniform deliberately. The state standard bidding documents examined carry a clause 69.4 headed 'Contractor's Entitlement to Suspend Work'; the published commentary on the 2011 General Conditions and the 1999 Ministry of Works conditions reports no such right.
“Sub-Clause 2.4 is not a licence to audit the employer whenever confidence dips. It answers three defined events — and the first missed certificate is one of them.”
The case against walking away early
The obvious objection. This article argues for acting on the first qualifying event. The opposite case is real, and contractors who have lived through it will raise it.
The argument. Suspending or terminating on an employer that recovers is commercially catastrophic. The relationship ends, the reputation follows it around a market where clients talk to each other, and if the suspension turns out to have been unjustified the contractor is in breach rather than in credit. Many employers who miss certificates are experiencing a timing problem, not an insolvency — and in a market where payment delay is endemic, treating every late certificate as an insolvency signal would mean suspending most projects most years.
And a second. There is a second point specific to the rescue procedures CAMA introduced. Administration exists to achieve a better outcome than immediate winding-up, and sometimes it does. A contractor still engaged when an administrator is appointed may be the party best placed to complete the works, and therefore a party the administrator needs. That is leverage, and a contractor that has already terminated has none of it.
Where that leaves it. Which is why the graduated route matters more than the binary one. Requesting evidence under Sub-Clause 2.4 is not a suspension and not a termination — it is a request the Employer must answer within 28 days. It produces information, creates a contractual record, and starts a clock, without ending anything. The error in the composite was not failing to terminate early; it was letting three qualifying events pass without making the request that each one entitled it to make.
What to do before signature, and at the first qualifying event
First. Read the Contract Data entry on the Employer's financial arrangements before signing. Sub-Clause 2.4 requires it to be there. A thin or empty entry is not a technicality; it is the first piece of evidence you will ever get.
Second. Do the credit work before signing, and do it the Nigerian way. A Corporate Affairs Commission search on the employer — status, directors, registered charges — is the first step, because for most private Nigerian companies there are no usefully published accounts to read. Add the ownership structure, payment references from other contractors on the employer's recent work, and whether the project carries lender or donor oversight, which is often the strongest single indicator that the money exists.
Third. Put security in place while you still have negotiating power. An advance payment bond, a parent company guarantee, a payment guarantee from a bank, or an escrow arrangement for retention. Each costs something; each converts part of an unsecured claim into something better than a place in the section 657 queue.
Fourth. Make the Sub-Clause 2.4 request on the first qualifying event, in writing, and diarise the 28 days. Then know the onward clocks: 21 days from a Sub-Clause 16.1 Notice before suspension, 42 days for the termination grounds. On JCT, that obligations suspend automatically under clause 8.10.3 but termination needs a notice under 8.10.1.
Fifth, and separately. On a public contract, do four different things. Establish whether the employer is an MDA or an incorporated company, because that decides which half of this article applies to you. Ask for the procurement plan, the appropriation and the Certificate of 'No Objection' behind the award. Check that the contract specifies an interest rate for late payment, and get one inserted at clarification stage if it does not. And read the employer's-default clause in whichever conditions the contract incorporates, so that you know whether you may suspend or only terminate.
← Week 9 Why the Specification Matters More Than the Drawing · Projects Associates · www.projectsassociates.com · Week 11 Valuation and Payment →
CLAUSE REFERENCES
Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 (Nigeria), Act No. 3 of 2020, assented and commenced 7 August 2020; long title records repeal of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. Section numbers and headings are taken from the official Federal Republic of Nigeria Gazette text (No. 124, Vol. 107, 10 August 2020): Chapter 17, Company Voluntary Arrangements, ss. 434–442; Chapter 18, Administration of Companies, ss. 443–549 (s. 443 appointment of administrator; s. 449 conditions for making order; s. 452 power to appoint by holder of floating charge); s. 480 — Moratorium on other legal process; s. 577 — Avoidance of attachments; s. 657 — Preferential payments; s. 658 — Fraudulent preference. Where this article describes the operation of s. 480 or the ranking in s. 657(6), that description rests on corroborated Nigerian professional commentary rather than on the subsection text, which has not been read directly; administration is a new procedure in Nigeria and the courts have not yet developed substantial jurisprudence on it. · FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction 2017 (2nd ed), read from the form: SC 2.4 [Employer’s Financial Arrangements] — financing arrangements to be detailed in the Contract Data; Employer’s duty to give immediate Notice of a material change with detailed supporting particulars; and the Contractor’s right to request reasonable evidence, answerable within 28 days, arising only where the Contractor (a) receives a Variation instruction greater than 10% of the Accepted Contract Amount or accumulated Variations exceed 30% of it, (b) does not receive payment in accordance with SC 14.7, or (c) becomes aware of a material change of which no Notice was given. SC 16.1 [Suspension by Contractor] — not less than 21 days after Notice; SC 16.2 [Termination by Contractor] — including the 42-day limbs and the Employer insolvency ground; SC 14.7; SC 20.2. · JCT SBC/Q 2016, read from the form: cl. 8.1 (meaning of insolvency); cl. 8.10.1 (Contractor may terminate by notice), cl. 8.10.2 (Employer’s duty to notify), cl. 8.10.3 (obligations to carry out and complete suspended automatically); cl. 8.9. The JCT 2024 suite is not covered. · Public Procurement Act 2007 (Nigeria), Act No. 14 of 2007, read from the text of the Act: s. 16(1)(b) (procurement based only on plans supported by prior budgetary appropriations; no proceedings formalised until funds ensured available); s. 16(2) (no disbursement above the Bureau’s prior review thresholds without a Certificate of ‘No Objection’ to contract award); s. 35(1) (mobilisation fee of not more than 15%, against an unconditional bank guarantee or insurance bond for national competitive bidding, or an unconditional bank guarantee for international competitive bidding); s. 35(2) (no further payment without an interim performance certificate); s. 36 (performance guarantee a precondition where a mobilisation fee is paid, not less than 10% of contract value); s. 37 (payment settled promptly and diligently; delayed where outstanding more than sixty days from submission of the invoice; interest at the rate specified in the contract document; all contracts to include terms specifying that interest). Section text read from two independent hostings of the Act, one of them a Federal Government agency. · Nigerian standard conditions: the clause headings at 69.3, 69.4 and 69.5 under ‘Default of MDA’ are read from two state standard bidding documents for large works — Lagos State Public Procurement Agency, April 2013, and Plateau State Bureau of Public Procurement, August 2017 — whose General Conditions are titled for works of civil engineering construction. The operative text of clause 69.4 was not readable in the copies available and is therefore not described. The General Conditions of Contract for the Procurement of Works in Nigeria 2011 and the Federal Ministry of Works Standard Conditions of Contract (Road Works) 1999 are named, and the reported absence of a contractor’s suspension right under them is attributed to published Nigerian commentary; no clause number is cited for either form, because the primary text of neither could be obtained. · CAMA ss. 447(1), 705 and 868(1) and reg. 24 of the Companies Regulations 2021 on insolvency practitioner qualification are taken from two independent Nigerian professional sources, not from the primary text. · Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, s. 84: the consent requirement, its limitation to funds in the custody or control of a public officer, and the recent questioning of its constitutionality in a separate opinion are attributed to Nigerian professional commentary; no case is cited as authority here. · No recovery-percentage statistic is cited; none could be verified against Nigerian data.
Comments