Introduction
The modern corporate world is increasingly characterised by groups of companies operating under common ownership, control or management. It is not unusual for a business enterprise to comprise a holding company, several subsidiaries, sister companies, associated companies, joint ventures and other entities which, although separately incorporated, may operate as part of a broader commercial group.
The existence of these structures inevitably raises questions concerning the legal relationship between the companies within the group. When is one company a subsidiary of another? What constitutes an affiliate? Can two companies be affiliates even though they have different shareholders and directors? Does common ownership make two companies the same legal entity? And, where the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 ("CAMA") does not expressly define a particular relationship, how should that relationship be determined?
These questions are important in corporate transactions, financing arrangements, procurement, taxation, regulatory compliance, financial reporting and litigation. They are also particularly relevant when contracts, tender documents or regulatory instruments impose obligations or restrictions on a company and its "affiliates", "group companies" or "related companies". The starting point for answering these questions is the fundamental principle of separate legal personality.
Separate Legal Personality and Corporate Groups
Upon incorporation, a company becomes a legal person distinct from its shareholders, directors and other companies within its corporate group. This principle, famously established in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897) AC 22 and recognised as a fundamental principle of Nigerian company law, means that a company possesses its own rights and obligations independent of those of its members. CAMA 2020 gives statutory expression to this principle.
The consequence is that a parent company and its subsidiary are ordinarily separate legal persons. The same is true of two companies which are subsidiaries of the same parent. The importance of this principle cannot be overstated.
A company does not cease to be a separate legal person merely because another company owns its shares, appoints its directors, provides financing to it, provides management services to it or exercises significant influence over its affairs. Similarly, two companies do not become a single legal entity merely because they share a common parent. This means that the existence of a corporate relationship and the existence of corporate liability are two separate questions.
A company may be part of the same corporate group as another company without being liable for that company's debts or contractual obligations. The Supreme Court's decision in Bulet International (Nigeria) Ltd v Olaniyi (2017-LD-SC-31) illustrates this principle. The Court recognised the separate legal personality of a subsidiary and the fact that its corporate personality cannot simply be disregarded because of its relationship with another company. The legal question, therefore, is not simply whether companies are connected. It is necessary to determine the nature of the connection and the legal consequence that the law attaches to it.
Subsidiaries under CAMA 2020 CAMA provides a relatively clear statutory framework for determining when one company is a subsidiary of another. Section 381(1) provides, broadly, that a company is deemed to be a subsidiary of another company where the other company is a member of the first company and controls the composition of its board; where the other company holds more than 50 per cent of the nominal value of its equity share capital; or where the first company is itself a subsidiary of a company which is a subsidiary of the other company.
The provision is significant because it demonstrates that subsidiary status under Nigerian law is not exclusively a question of shareholding. The most obvious example is where Company A owns 60 per cent of Company B. In such circumstances, Company B is a subsidiary of Company A because Company A holds more than 50 per cent of its equity share capital. However, the law also recognises control through the composition of the board.
A company may therefore be a subsidiary even where the percentage of shares held by the other company is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a subsidiary relationship, provided the statutory requirements concerning control of the board are satisfied. This makes it necessary, when conducting corporate due diligence, to look beyond the register of members.
The articles of association, shareholders' agreements, voting arrangements and rights relating to the appointment or removal of directors may be equally relevant to determining the actual corporate relationship. CAMA also recognises indirect subsidiary relationships. Thus, where Company A controls Company B and Company B controls Company C, the relationship between Company A and Company C may also fall within the statutory framework governing subsidiaries.
The legislation consequently recognises that corporate control can operate through several layers of a corporate structure.
Wholly Owned Subsidiaries
CAMA further recognises the concept of a wholly owned subsidiary. This is a company whose membership is structured so that the relevant parent company, together with qualifying nominees and wholly owned subsidiaries, effectively holds the entire ownership interest. A wholly owned subsidiary represents a particularly strong form of ownership control, but the legal distinction between the parent and the subsidiary remains.
The fact that a parent owns 100 per cent of a subsidiary does not mean that the subsidiary's assets belong directly to the parent or that the parent automatically assumes the subsidiary's liabilities. The subsidiary remains a separate incorporated entity capable of owning property, entering contracts, commencing proceedings and being sued in its own name. This is an important distinction between ownership and legal identity.
The Meaning of Affiliate
The position becomes less straightforward when the expression "affiliate" is used. Unlike "subsidiary", CAMA 2020 does not provide one comprehensive, general definition of the term "affiliate" applicable to every circumstance. The Act nevertheless recognises relationships which are broader than the immediate parent-subsidiary relationship. It refers, in different contexts, to group companies, fellow subsidiaries, related companies and affiliated companies.
The First Schedule to CAMA, for example, makes reference to affiliated companies in the context of corporate disclosures. The Act also recognises a "group company" and a "fellow subsidiary", thereby acknowledging that companies may be connected through a common corporate structure even where neither company is a subsidiary of the other. The absence of a general definition of "affiliate" should therefore not be interpreted to mean that the concept has no legal relevance. Rather, the meaning of the term must ordinarily be determined by reference to the context in which it is used. This is particularly important in commercial agreements.
A financing agreement may define an affiliate by reference to control. A procurement document may define it by reference to common ownership. A tax statute may employ a different concept of connected persons. An accounting standard may adopt yet another framework for identifying related parties.
Accordingly, it is not always legally correct to ask simply whether a company is an "affiliate under CAMA". The better question is whether, for the particular purpose under consideration, the relationship between the companies falls within the relevant definition or legal framework.
Sister Companies and Fellow Subsidiaries
One of the clearest examples of an affiliate-type relationship arises where two companies are subsidiaries of the same parent.
Assume that Company A and Company B are each wholly owned by Company C. Company A is a subsidiary of Company C. Company B is also a subsidiary of Company C. However, Company A is not the subsidiary of Company B, nor is Company B the subsidiary of Company A.
The relationship between Company A and Company B is therefore one of common control. They may be described as sister companies or fellow subsidiaries. This distinction is recognised within the corporate framework under CAMA and the Persons with Significant Control Regulation made pursuant to CAMA.
The fact that Company A and Company B are under common ownership does not make them one company. Each remains a separate legal person. Company A's contracts remain its contracts, and Company B's contracts remain its contracts. The liabilities of one do not automatically become the liabilities of the other. Commercially, however, the companies may properly be regarded as part of the same corporate group and, depending on the relevant instrument, may fall within the broader meaning of "affiliate".
Common Control and Different Shareholders
A particularly interesting issue arises where companies have different registered shareholders and directors but are nevertheless controlled by the same ultimate entity. The fact that two companies have different names on their registers of members does not necessarily settle the question of whether they are part of the same corporate group.
For example, Company A may have one set of shareholders while Company B has an entirely different set. Company A may also have a completely different board from Company B. If, however, another entity possesses the legal rights necessary to control both companies, the companies may nevertheless be under common control. The analysis should therefore focus on the actual legal and corporate structure rather than simply comparing the names of the registered shareholders and directors. This is one reason why CAMA's provisions concerning persons with significant control are important.
Persons with Significant Control
CAMA 2020 introduced a broader transparency framework through the concept of the Person with Significant Control ("PSC").
Section 868 recognises a person as having significant control where, among other things, that person directly or indirectly holds at least 5 per cent of the shares or voting rights, possesses the right to appoint or remove a majority of directors, or otherwise has the right to exercise or actually exercises significant influence or control over the company. The significance of these provisions lies in the recognition that corporate control may exist even where the ultimate controller is not immediately apparent from the company's register of members.
The PSC regime is therefore relevant when examining corporate structures involving indirect ownership or control. It is important, however, not to confuse PSC status with subsidiary status. The two concepts serve different purposes. Section 381 establishes the statutory relationship between holding companies and subsidiaries, while the PSC provisions are primarily concerned with transparency and the identification of persons exercising significant ownership or control. A person may therefore be a PSC without the company necessarily being a subsidiary of that person for every purpose under CAMA.
The Relationship Between Affiliate and Subsidiary
The concepts of subsidiary and affiliate should therefore not be treated as interchangeable. A subsidiary is a relationship specifically recognised and defined by CAMA.
An affiliate is generally a broader expression that may encompass companies connected through common ownership, common control, significant influence or another legally recognised relationship, depending upon the context. It is therefore possible for Company A to be an affiliate of Company B without Company A being the subsidiary of Company B.
This could occur where both companies are subsidiaries of the same parent. They are affiliates or group companies in the broader commercial sense, but neither is the subsidiary of the other. Conversely, where Company A owns more than 50 per cent of Company B, Company B is a subsidiary of Company A and would ordinarily also fall within the broader commercial understanding of an affiliated company.
The distinction is therefore one of precision. "Subsidiary" describes a particular statutory relationship. "Affiliate" may describe a wider corporate connection.
Where CAMA is Silent
The absence of a comprehensive definition of "affiliate" in CAMA creates an interpretative gap, but it is a gap that can be addressed through established principles of statutory and contractual interpretation. The first consideration should always be the instrument in which the term appears. If a contract defines "affiliate", that definition should ordinarily govern the relationship between the parties. Where the contract is silent, it becomes necessary to consider the applicable law and the factual relationship between the companies.
The nature of the relationship may be determined by examining the ownership structure, voting rights, board appointment rights, shareholder agreements, beneficial ownership, PSC filings and other evidence of control or influence. The purpose for which the relationship is being examined is equally important.
A corporate lawyer considering whether two companies are affiliates for purposes of a commercial agreement may reach a different conclusion from a tax adviser considering whether the same companies are connected persons for transfer-pricing purposes. Similarly, the concept of a related party under applicable accounting standards may not be identical to the concept of a subsidiary under CAMA. The absence of a single definition therefore makes context critical.
Corporate Affiliation Does Not Create Automatic Liability
One of the most important practical consequences of these distinctions is that affiliation does not automatically create liability. Suppose Company A and Company B are affiliates because they are both controlled by the same parent.
If Company A enters into a contract and subsequently defaults, the counterparty cannot ordinarily enforce Company A's contractual liability against Company B merely because the companies are affiliates. An independent legal basis would be required. Such a basis may arise where Company B has provided a guarantee or indemnity, where Company B was itself a party to the relevant contract, where an agency relationship has been established, or where another recognised legal doctrine permits liability to be attributed to Company B.
The same principle applies to ownership of assets. The fact that a parent company owns all the shares in a subsidiary does not mean that the parent owns the subsidiary's assets directly. Corporate ownership is not the same thing as ownership of corporate assets.
Corporate Affiliation Does Not Automatically Create Agency
The relationship between affiliation and agency must also be carefully distinguished. A parent company is not automatically the agent of its subsidiary, and a subsidiary is not automatically the agent of its parent.
The existence of an agency relationship must be established by reference to the relevant facts and legal principles. This distinction becomes particularly important in litigation where a claimant seeks to join a parent company or sister company to proceedings involving another company merely because of their corporate relationship.
The allegation that two companies are affiliates does not, without more, establish that one company acted on behalf of the other.
Conclusion
The law relating to corporate groups requires careful distinction between legal personality, ownership, control and affiliation. CAMA 2020 provides a relatively clear statutory framework for identifying subsidiaries. Section 381 recognises both ownership and control of the board as bases upon which a subsidiary relationship may arise and also accommodates indirect subsidiary relationships.
CAMA also recognises broader corporate relationships, including holding companies, wholly owned subsidiaries, fellow subsidiaries, group companies and related companies. The Act further introduces the concept of persons with significant control, reflecting the modern understanding that effective control may exist beyond the immediate registered shareholding structure. The position concerning "affiliates", however, requires greater caution.
CAMA does not provide one comprehensive definition of the term applicable to every situation. Consequently, the meaning of "affiliate" must generally be determined by reference to the instrument in which it is used, the applicable statutory framework, the factual ownership and control structure and the particular legal consequence being considered.
This distinction is especially important where two companies have different registered shareholders and directors but are ultimately controlled by the same entity. Different shareholders or directors do not, in themselves, exclude the possibility of an affiliate or common-control relationship. Equally, the existence of such a relationship does not merge the separate legal personalities of the companies or automatically make one company liable for the obligations of another.
The appropriate legal approach is therefore to avoid treating subsidiary, affiliate, group company, fellow subsidiary, related company, associated company and connected person as interchangeable concepts. Each describes a potentially different legal or commercial relationship, and each may carry different consequences depending upon the applicable law.
Ultimately, the most important question is not simply whether two companies are connected, but the nature of their connection, the source of that connection, and the specific legal consequence which the law or the parties' agreement attach to it.
About Mint & Cliff LP Mint & Cliff LP is a Nigerian law firm providing legal services in corporate and commercial law, dispute resolution, regulatory compliance, contracts, intellectual property, employment and other areas of business law.
© 2026 Mint & Cliff LP. All rights reserved.