THE RENVOI THEORY

                

Renvoi is coined from a French word ‘Renvoyer’ which means to send back. The problem of renvoi arises whenever a rule of the conflict of law refers to the ‘law of a foreign country’ but the country rule of the foreign country would have referred the question of the ‘law’ of the first country or to the law of the third country; L’affaire Forgo’s Case

Two Divergent Schools Spring up in response to controversy
First School: Internal Rules of foreign law system and nothing more
Second School: Conflict of law rules of the foreign system

THEORIES
1. Rejecting the Renvoi Theory- Hamilton v Dallas
2. Accepting the Renvoi Theory- Casadagil v Casadagil
3. Foreign court theory/Double Renvoi Theory – Collier v Rivaz

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF RENVOI
1. It is self-defeating to purport to apply a foreign law unless one applies the solution that would actually be applied by the courts of the foreign country
2. Renvoi protects the reasonable expectations of the parties
3. Resorting to total Renvoi  is to achieve uniformity  of decision of the case irrespective of the country in whose court it is brought
4. There is an argument for total Renvoi in cases concerning title to immovable property
5. It can be utilized as a convenient expedient to avoid the application of a foreign law that will lead to undesirable result
See Taczanowska v Taczanowska

ARGUMENTS AGAINST RENVOI
1. It is said to be difficult to ascertain whether the foreign system of law does or does not apply to renvoi. Re Duke Wellington 
2. It is claimed that by applying Renvoi  an English Court is surrounding to a foreign court, in that instead of applying the English choice of law rule, it is effectively applying the french or Italian choice  of law
3. A difficulty arises of the foreign court, should it be seized of the case, would apply the law of a person’s humanity. Re O’keefe
4. There is no logical reason why the process should ever stop, moreover, the English “double Renvoi” only operates at all because the courts of other countries reject it. Re Annesley. This is called Circulus inextricabilus.

PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW
Before a Nigerian Court will apply foreign law, it is necessary not only for the relevant choice of law rule to indicate that an issue in the case is to be decided by a foreign law, but also for a party to the case to plead and prove that law for foreign law is determined by the courts as a question of fact.
See Section 58 (1) (2) of the Evidence Act
If no evidence is given that the foreign law differs from the domestic law, the Nigerian Courts will assume that the are same and apply the latter, see Oganro & Ors v Ogendengbe & anor.
In Alluminium Industries Vaason v Romalpha Alluminium Ltd, a contract contained a provision to be governed by Dutch law but as neither party pleaded Dutch law Before the English Court, the case was decided according to English Law.