Africa, MENA, and the Arbitration Act 2025: LCIA’s Latest Report

The LCIA's 2025 Annual Casework Report contains a finding that should command the attention of any business with commercial exposure to Africa or the Middle East. Participation from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) rose to almost 15% of the LCIA's caseload in 2025, and the UAE alone is now the third most represented jurisdiction globally, overtaking every non-Anglophone jurisdiction in the world.^[1] That shift did not happen in isolation. It coincided with the entry into force of the Arbitration Act 2025 (the 2025 Act) — the most significant reform of English arbitration law in a generation — and a dramatic surge in parties deploying the LCIA's procedural toolkit more aggressively than ever before.^[2]

The LCIA Rules provide parties with a suite of procedural mechanisms — including expedited tribunal formation, emergency arbitration, early determination of unmeritorious claims, consolidation of related cases, joinder of additional parties, and interim relief — that together enable active case management. The Arbitration Act 2025 reinforces several of these tools at the statutory level, most notably by introducing a power of summary disposal mirroring the rules' own early determination procedure. 

Key Findings 

1. The geographic surge is real and accelerating. 

Western European parties accounted for the largest regional share in LCIA Rules arbitrations, increasing to 37.3% in 2025 from 33.1% in 2024.3 MENA was the second largest regional group at 14.9% in 2025, up from 10.1% in 2024 — sitting behind Western Europe but ahead of every other region globally, including Sub-Saharan Africa at 13.1%, Asia Pacific at 8.2%, Latin America and the Caribbean at 8.0%, and North America at 7.8%.4 The UAE's share alone jumped from 4.2% to 7.0%, making it now the third most represented jurisdiction overall — behind only the United Kingdom at 15.1% and the United States at 7.3%, and ahead of Switzerland at 5.6% and Kenya at 4.1%.5  

Sub-Saharan African parties accounted for 13.1% of the total, though the region nonetheless retained third place globally.6 Kenya ranked fifth overall by jurisdiction at 4.1%, while Nigeria and Mauritius each reached 2.4%.7 Kenyan law was the second most frequently chosen governing law, applying in 16 arbitrations, and the laws of six African jurisdictions governed 24 arbitrations in total.8 Eight arbitrations were seated in Sub-Saharan Africa, and Nairobi and Port Louis were each selected as seat in three cases.9 The LCIA Rules ranked second among respondents in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the Caribbean and Latin America in the 2025 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case Survey.10 Taken together, they confirm that the LCIA's non-Western user base has overtaken every region except Western Europe — and that Africa and MENA together now account for more than a quarter of all parties in LCIA Rules arbitrations.  

Crowell & Moring’s International Dispute Resolution practice has seen these figures borne out, with significant cases involving Kenyan and Mauritian parties and several recent intra-African disputes also landing at the LCIA in London. Looking ahead, given the ongoing tumult in the MENA region and the devastating impact it has had on supply chains, we expect these figures to continue increasing when the 2026 data is released next year. 

2. States and state-owned entities are a persistent feature of the caseload. 

Disputes involving states or state-owned entities featured in 36 LCIA Rules arbitrations in 2025, representing 11% of the caseload.11 Over five years, the LCIA administered 207 such cases — approximately 13% of all LCIA Rules arbitrations in that period.12 States and state-owned entities in 2025 came from 20 jurisdictions.13 For businesses operating in Africa and the MENA region, where state-owned counterparties are prevalent, this is a standing feature of the commercial landscape that dispute resolution strategy must accommodate from the outset. 

3. Geopolitical disruption is driving new disputes. 

The report's caseload reflects the real-world consequences of geopolitical instability: sanctions, shifting supply chains, and new contractual relationships are explicitly identified as drivers of the 2025 caseload.14 Transport and commodities disputes remained the largest sector at 25%.15 Of agreements concluded within two years of referral to the LCIA, 38% were sale of goods agreements, and among those, 83% arose in the transport and commodities sector.16 Services agreements increased from 18% to 26% of the agreement mix — the largest movement in agreement type — and professional services disputes more than doubled in sector share, from 5% to 11%.17 Energy and resources disputes increased from 10% to 14%, becoming the third largest sector.18 

4. Early determination has entered mainstream practice. 

The single most operationally significant procedural development in the report is the significant increase in early determination applications. There were 38 applications in 2025, more than double the 17 made in 2024, reaching the highest annual level in the five-year reported period.19 Of the applications decided by the reporting cutoff, 33% were granted, compared with just 11% in 2024.20 The majority were filed either before written pleadings were submitted or during the written phase.21 The report links the surge directly to the 2025 Act, which inserted a statutory power of summary disposal at section 39A of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act).22 The LCIA Rules have provided for early determination under Article 22.1(viii) since 2020.23  

Practical Implications 

• London and English law remain the dominant anchors — but the 2025 Act has changed the default: London was the seat in 87% of arbitrations commenced in 2025, and English law governed in 79%.24 Prior to the 2025 Act, the English Supreme Court’s decision in Enka v Chubb meant that unless the parties had stated otherwise, the governing law of the underlying contract would also apply to the arbitration agreement. For contracts executed on or after 1 August 2025, section 6A of the 1996 Act (inserted pursuant to section 1(2) of the 2025 Act) provides that the law of the seat governs the arbitration agreement as a default unless the parties expressly choose otherwise.25Article 16.4 of the LCIA Rules has carried this same default since 2014, but the statutory codification gives it greater weight and enforceability. Parties who assumed that the governing law of the contract (which may be the party’s domestic law) also applied to the arbitration clause (often a common assumption in African and MENA transactions) will need to check whether that assumption still holds. 
• Security for costs is a live tool with a 50% success rate: Security for costs under Article 25.2 was the most frequently requested form of interim relief, with 41 applications in 2025.26 Of the 36 applications decided, only 50% were granted or partially granted.27 In cross-border disputes involving counterparties in jurisdictions where enforcement of a costs award would be difficult, this is a meaningful and often underused lever. Parties should be assessing security for costs applications at the pre-action stage or early in proceedings. 
• Composite requests and consolidation do work — and are disproportionately used in commodities and trade: Composite requests commencing multiple arbitrations under one filing accounted for 24% of all LCIA Rules arbitrations commenced in 2025, with 32 composite requests commencing 76 arbitrations.28 They are most commonly used in sale of goods and commodities disputes.29 78% of composite requests resulted in consolidation, and 83% of successful consolidation applications were granted before the tribunal was appointed.30 For businesses managing multiple related disputes, this is an efficiency tool that can significantly reduce cost and procedural duplication. 

Why the LCIA, the 2025 Act, and the English Courts Matter 

The LCIA Rules combine broad tribunal powers with procedures for expedited formation, emergency arbitration, early determination, and related proceedings. London-seated arbitrations benefit from experienced supervisory courts and the reforms introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025. Read together, the LCIA Rules and the 2025 Act now provide one of the most robust and comprehensive procedural frameworks available for the resolution of complex cross-border disputes. Section 39A of the 1996 Act gives statutory backing to early determination orders, and section 6A provides a clear default governing law for the arbitration agreement that aligns with LCIA Rule 16.4. The result is a framework that is more predictable, more enforceable, and more resistant to dilatory tactics than before. 

That framework is reinforced by the English supervisory courts. The English courts have demonstrated a strong and consistent willingness to support the arbitral process, including through the granting of anti-suit injunctions to restrain parallel foreign proceedings commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement, and the grant of other forms of protective relief in support of arbitrations seated in London. That judicial posture is a material advantage for parties choosing London as seat and should feature prominently in any dispute resolution strategy involving African or MENA counterparties. 

Conclusion 

The LCIA's 2025 data reflects the growing and increasingly well-documented trend that LCIA arbitration is becoming a progressively more popular choice for cross-regional commercial disputes involving parties from Africa and the Middle East, often being preferred over the more traditional ICC route for reasons of cost, efficiency and institutional flexibility.  

By comparison, the LCIA received 320 new referrals for arbitrations in 2025.31 The combination of the Arbitration Act 2025, an expanded procedural toolkit, the support of the English supervisory courts, and an increasingly confident pool of African and MENA users means the LCIA is better placed than ever to handle the complexity of these disputes. Businesses and their counsel should update their contract templates, dispute strategies, and procedural assumptions accordingly. 

Watch this space: It is worth noting that the LCIA Rules are currently under revision. The first public consultation closed in May 2026, and the Rules Revision Committees are considering the submissions received. Further drafts and additional rounds of public consultation are expected to follow, giving users further opportunities to shape the final text of the revised rules. Practitioners and users should monitor developments closely. 

Chiraag Shah is a Partner in Crowell & Moring's International Dispute Resolution practice in London, with particular arbitration experience involving African and Middle Eastern parties and investments. Edmund Northcott is counsel and Harrison Winter is an associate in the same practice, with experience in complex international arbitration and litigation across a range of sectors, including energy and natural resources.