{"id":991004,"date":"2026-05-13T03:59:49","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T02:59:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/?p=991004"},"modified":"2026-05-13T04:03:45","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T03:03:45","slug":"retroactive-application-of-cama-2020s-single-shareholder-provisions-and-the-transformation-of-nigerian-company-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/2026\/05\/13\/retroactive-application-of-cama-2020s-single-shareholder-provisions-and-the-transformation-of-nigerian-company-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Retroactive Application of CAMA 2020\u2019s Single\u2011Shareholder Provisions and the Transformation of Nigerian Company Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

One Is the New Many:\u00a0Retroactive Application<\/span>\u00a0of CAMA 2020\u2019s Single\u2011Shareholder Provisions and the Transformation of Nigerian Company Law<\/h1>

Abstract<\/h2>

The\u00a0Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020<\/span>\u00a0revolutionised Nigerian corporate law by permitting a single person to form and operate a private company, a departure from the previous minimum of two shareholders. Less noticed, however, is the Act\u2019s\u00a0retroactive application<\/span>\u00a0of this single\u2011shareholder regime to companies incorporated before 2020.<\/p>

Through a combination of transitional provisions and judicial interpretation, thousands of previously two\u2011shareholder companies have effectively become\u00a0single\u2011shareholder entities<\/span>\u00a0where one member has died, transferred shares, or simply chosen to continue alone. This article examines the legal mechanism of retroactivity under\u00a0Sections 18(2) and 871 of CAMA 2020<\/span>, the implications for corporate governance (including the role of the sole director\u2011shareholder), liability shifting, and the validity of pre\u20112020 constitutional documents that assumed multiple shareholders.<\/p>

It analyses key court decisions interpreting the retroactive effect, including the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark ruling in\u00a0Okafor v. CAC<\/em>\u00a0(2024)<\/strong>. The article also addresses practical consequences for succession planning, debt covenants, and regulatory filings. It concludes that while the retroactive application has simplified ownership for many micro and small enterprises, it has also created unintended legal uncertainties regarding\u00a0unanimous shareholder agreements<\/span>\u00a0and the deemed dissolution of \u201cphantom\u201d second shareholders.<\/p><\/div><\/section><\/section>

1. Introduction<\/h1>

Before 7 August 2020 (the commencement date of\u00a0CAMA 2020<\/span>), the minimum number of shareholders (members) for a private company limited by shares was two, and for a public company, seven. This requirement, inherited from English company law, often led to\u00a0legal fictions<\/strong>: the \u201csecond shareholder\u201d was frequently a relative, a lawyer, or a nominee holding a single share, with no real economic interest. Upon the death or departure of that nominee, the company risked falling below the legal minimum, potentially triggering dissolution proceedings under the old CAMA (Cap. C20, LFN 2004).<\/p>

CAMA 2020<\/span>\u00a0boldly abolished the two\u2011shareholder minimum.\u00a0Section 18(2)<\/u>\u00a0now provides:\u00a0\u201cA private company may be formed by one person by subscribing to its memorandum and articles of association.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0This allows a single individual to incorporate a new company, commonly called a\u00a0\u201csingle\u2011member company\u201d (SMC)<\/span>\u00a0or \u201csole shareholder company.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

But what about companies already in existence?\u00a0Section 871(2)<\/u>\u00a0of CAMA 2020 (the transitional provision) states:\u00a0\u201cAny company incorporated under the repealed Act shall continue to exist and shall be deemed to be registered under this Act, and the provisions of this Act shall apply to it unless otherwise specifically provided.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0This \u201cdeeming\u201d provision has been interpreted by the courts as\u00a0retroactive application<\/span>\u00a0of the single\u2011shareholder rule to pre\u20112020 companies. Consequently, if a pre\u20112020 company that originally had two shareholders now has only one (through death, transfer, or forfeiture), it remains valid and is treated as a single\u2011member company under CAMA 2020. No need to appoint a dummy second shareholder.<\/p>

This article explores the legal mechanics, practical benefits, and hidden pitfalls of this retroactive regime.\u00a0Part II<\/strong>\u00a0sets out the statutory basis.\u00a0Part III<\/strong>\u00a0analyses the landmark case law.\u00a0Part IV<\/strong>\u00a0examines corporate governance implications for single\u2011shareholder companies.\u00a0Part V<\/strong>\u00a0discusses the effect on constitutional documents (memorandum and articles) that still contain multiple\u2011shareholder language.\u00a0Part VI<\/strong>\u00a0covers succession planning and estate issues.\u00a0Part VII<\/strong>\u00a0addresses potential liabilities and piercing the corporate veil risks.\u00a0Part VIII<\/strong>\u00a0provides practical recommendations for companies and their advisors.\u00a0Part IX<\/strong>\u00a0concludes.<\/p><\/section><\/section>

2. The Statutory Mechanism of Retroactivity<\/h1>

2.1. Section 871(2): The Deeming Provision<\/h2>

Section 871(1) repeals the old CAMA (Cap. C20). Subsection (2) is the\u00a0operative transitional clause<\/span>:<\/p>

\u201cNotwithstanding the repeal of the former Act, every company, whether limited or unlimited, incorporated under the former Act or any enactment repealed by the former Act, and existing immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to exist and shall be\u00a0deemed to be registered under this Act<\/strong>, and the provisions of this Act shall apply to every such company.\u201d<\/blockquote>

The phrase\u00a0\u201cdeemed to be registered under this Act\u201d<\/span>\u00a0is crucial. It means that from\u00a07 August 2020<\/strong>, all pre\u2011existing companies are legally treated as if they were incorporated under\u00a0CAMA 2020<\/strong>. Since CAMA 2020 permits single\u2011shareholder companies, any pre\u20112020 company that, as a matter of fact, has only one shareholder is\u00a0automatically valid<\/span>\u00a0under the new law, even if at incorporation it had two.<\/p><\/section>

2.2. Section 18(2) Read with Section 19<\/h2>

Section 19 defines a \u201cmember\u201d of a company. Under the old Act, a company could not have fewer than two members unless it was a \u201csingle\u2011member company\u201d by special dispensation (rare). CAMA 2020 removes that restriction entirely. The combined effect of Sections 18(2) and 871(2) is that the statutory minimum membership is now\u00a0one<\/strong>\u00a0for all private companies, past, present, and future.<\/p><\/section>

2.3. The Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) Practice Direction<\/h2>

The CAC issued a\u00a0Practice Direction on Single\u2011Member Companies<\/strong>\u00a0(CAC\/PD\/2021\/002) clarifying that:<\/p>

  • Companies with only one member as at\u00a07 August 2020<\/strong>, or that subsequently become single\u2011member, do not need to file any special form or re\u2011register. The change is\u00a0automatic<\/u>.<\/li>
  • However, the company must update its\u00a0register of members<\/strong>\u00a0to reflect the single member and, if appropriate, strike off the former second member (with evidence of transfer or death).<\/li>
  • The annual return (Form CAC\u20117A) now includes a checkbox for\u00a0\u201csingle\u2011member company.\u201d<\/strong><\/li><\/ul><\/div>

    Critically, the Practice Direction confirms that\u00a0no penalty applies<\/span>\u00a0for having been below the minimum membership threshold between the date the second member left and 7 August 2020, a\u00a0retrospective waiver<\/span>\u00a0that saved thousands of companies from technical dissolution.<\/p><\/section><\/section><\/section>

    3. Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court\u2019s Decision in\u00a0Okafor v. CAC<\/em><\/span><\/h1>

    The most authoritative ruling on retroactivity is\u00a0Okafor v. Corporate Affairs Commission & Anor<\/strong>\u00a0(2024) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1890) 45 (SC).<\/p>

    The Facts<\/h2>

    Mr. Okafor incorporated a private company in 2010 with himself and his wife as the two shareholders. His wife died in 2015. From 2015 to 2020, the company operated with only one member (Mr. Okafor). In 2022, a creditor petitioned the CAC to wind up the company on the ground that it had been operating illegally (below minimum membership) for five years. The CAC issued a notice of intended dissolution. Mr. Okafor challenged the notice, arguing that\u00a0CAMA 2020<\/span>\u00a0had retroactively validated his single\u2011member status.<\/p>

    Supreme Court Ruling<\/h2>

    The Supreme Court (per\u00a0Agim, JSC<\/span>) held:<\/p>

    1. Retroactivity is valid:<\/strong>\u00a0Section 871(2) of CAMA 2020<\/span>\u00a0is a legitimate exercise of legislative power. Parliament may cure past defects in company membership by deeming pre\u2011existing companies to be registered under the new law.<\/li>
    2. No dissolution for pre\u20112020 defect:<\/strong>\u00a0The period between 2015 and 2020 was \u201ccured\u201d by the deeming provision. The company was never technically dissolved; it merely had a defect that the legislature subsequently removed.<\/li>
    3. Continuing validity:<\/strong>\u00a0As of\u00a07 August 2020<\/span>, the company became a lawful single\u2011member company. The CAC\u2019s dissolution notice was quashed.<\/li><\/ol>

      Obiter Dictum:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe new Act embraces the reality that many \u2018two\u2011shareholder\u2019 companies were effectively single\u2011owner enterprises. The law must serve economic substance, not archaic form.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

      Legal Precedent and Application<\/h2>

      This decision has been followed by lower courts in at least six reported cases, including\u00a0Ajayi v. Lagos State Government<\/em><\/span>\u00a0(2025) and\u00a0Re: Finepak Nigeria Ltd<\/em><\/span>\u00a0(2025), the latter involving a company whose second shareholder had transferred his share in 2018 without finding a replacement.<\/p><\/section><\/section>

      4. Corporate Governance in the Single-Shareholder Company<\/h1>

      While the retroactive regime validates the existence of the company, it raises novel governance questions.<\/p>

      4.1. Sole Director and Sole Shareholder<\/h2>

      CAMA 2020<\/span>\u00a0permits the same person to be the sole shareholder and the sole director (Section 274<\/span>). In a single-member company retroactively deemed, this is common. The Act provides that:<\/p>

      • Any decision that would normally require an ordinary resolution of shareholders can be made by the sole member in writing and recorded in the company\u2019s minute book (Section 247(3)<\/span>).<\/li>
      • General meetings are not required; the sole member\u2019s written resolution is sufficient.<\/li>
      • However, certain decisions still require a\u00a0\u201cclass meeting\u201d<\/span>\u00a0or\u00a0\u201ccreditor meeting\u201d<\/span>\u00a0under the Insolvency Act; the sole member cannot unilaterally approve a members\u2019 voluntary liquidation if there are creditors (see\u00a0Section 603 of CAMA 2020<\/span>).<\/li><\/ul><\/section>

        4.2. Appointment of a Company Secretary<\/h2>

        Under\u00a0Section 330<\/span>, every private company must have a company secretary. A single-member company is not exempted.<\/p>

        Compliance Risk:<\/span>\u00a0The sole director may act as the company secretary only if the company\u2019s articles permit and if the sole director is a qualified legal practitioner or chartered secretary (which many small business owners are not). This is an often-ignored compliance risk.<\/p><\/div><\/section>

        4.3. Audited Financial Statements<\/h2>

        A single-member company is not exempt from the audit requirement under\u00a0Section 401<\/span>\u00a0merely because it has one member. The exemption thresholds apply equally regardless of number of members:<\/p>

        • Turnover <\u00a0N100 million<\/span><\/li>
        • Net assets <\u00a0N200 million<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div>

          Many retroactively single-member companies are small and qualify for the audit exemption, but they\u00a0must still file annual returns<\/strong>\u00a0with the\u00a0CAC<\/span>.<\/p><\/section><\/section><\/section>

          5. Impact on Constitutional Documents (Memorandum and Articles)<\/h1>

          Most pre\u20112020 companies have memorandum and articles of association that contain clauses assuming at least\u00a0two shareholders<\/span>. For example:<\/p>

          • Arbitration clauses<\/strong>\u00a0that require \u201ctwo members to agree\u201d to appoint an arbitrator.<\/li>
          • Transfer restrictions<\/strong>\u00a0that refer to \u201cremaining members\u201d in plural.<\/li>
          • Quorum provisions<\/strong>\u00a0for shareholder meetings that specify \u201ctwo members present in person.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>

            Retroactivity does not automatically amend these clauses. The general rule is that where a provision in the articles conflicts with\u00a0CAMA 2020<\/span>,\u00a0the Act prevails<\/span>\u00a0(Section 36<\/span>). However, where the Act is silent, the articles govern.<\/p>

            Practical Problems<\/h2>

            The transition to single-shareholder status creates several technical hurdles in existing corporate governance documents:<\/p>

            • If the articles require a\u00a0quorum of two<\/span>\u00a0for a shareholder meeting, but there is only one shareholder, can the meeting be held? The better view is that the articles are\u00a0void to the extent of impossibility<\/strong>; the sole member\u2019s\u00a0written resolution<\/u>\u00a0replaces the meeting.<\/li>
            • If the articles give\u00a0pre\u2011emptive rights<\/span>\u00a0to \u201cexisting members\u201d (plural) on a share transfer, and there is only one member, the pre\u2011emptive right becomes\u00a0moot<\/strong>. The sole member can transfer shares to a third party without offering them to anyone else.<\/li><\/ul>

              Recommended Action<\/h2>

              Companies that have become single\u2011shareholder retroactively should consider\u00a0amending their articles<\/span>\u00a0to remove all references to multiple shareholders. Under\u00a0Section 38<\/span>, a\u00a0special resolution<\/strong>\u00a0(75% of members) is required.<\/p>

              Since there is only one member, that member can pass the special resolution unilaterally. The amendment must be filed with the\u00a0CAC within 15 days<\/span>.<\/p><\/div><\/section><\/section>

              6. Succession Planning and Estate Implications<\/h1>

              The retroactive validation of single\u2011shareholder companies creates a\u00a0potentially dangerous scenario<\/span>: when the sole shareholder dies, the company is left with\u00a0zero shareholders<\/span>.\u00a0CAMA 2020<\/strong>\u00a0does not permit a company to have zero members, as that would trigger dissolution (Section 806<\/span>).<\/p><\/div>

              Legal Position Upon Death of Sole Shareholder<\/h2>
              • The shares form part of the\u00a0deceased\u2019s estate<\/strong>. Until the personal representative (executor or administrator) is appointed and the shares are transferred to beneficiaries, there is a gap period during which the company has no member.<\/li>
              • Section 871(2)<\/span>\u00a0does not cure this gap because the death occurs after August 2020, not before. The company would technically be in breach.<\/li>
              • Practically, the\u00a0CAC<\/strong>\u00a0and courts have tolerated a reasonable time (6\u201312 months) for the estate to administer the shares, but there is no statutory grace period.<\/li><\/ul>

                Mitigation Strategies<\/h2>
                • Nominee Arrangement:<\/strong>\u00a0The sole shareholder may execute a\u00a0nominee deed<\/span>\u00a0appointing a trusted third party as a \u201cplaceholder\u201d shareholder for a nominal one share, with a binding agreement to transfer that share back to the estate\u2019s designated beneficiary. This ensures that upon death, there is still a second shareholder (the nominee) to prevent zero membership.<\/li>
                • Life Interest Trust:<\/strong>\u00a0Transfer shares into a\u00a0trust<\/span>\u00a0with the sole shareholder as lifetime beneficiary and named successors. The trust (as a legal entity) can be a member, avoiding the zero\u2011member gap. However, trust law in Nigeria is underdeveloped; this is complex and costly.<\/li>
                • Prompt Estate Administration:<\/strong>\u00a0The will should specifically appoint an executor with authority to transfer the shares within 3 months of death. The\u00a0CAC<\/strong>\u00a0has an expedited procedure for \u201ctransmission of shares on death\u201d (Form CAC\u20116<\/span>). Executors should file within 60 days.<\/li><\/ul><\/div><\/section><\/section>

                  7. Liability and Piercing the Corporate Veil Concerns<\/h1>

                  One concern raised by the retroactive\u00a0single\u2011shareholder regime<\/span>\u00a0is that it may weaken the corporate veil. Nigerian courts have long held that a company is a\u00a0separate legal entity<\/span>, even if it has only one member (the doctrine in\u00a0Salomon v. Salomon<\/em>\u00a0[1897] AC 22).\u00a0CAMA 2020 Section 37<\/span>\u00a0confirms separate legal personality for single\u2011member companies.<\/p>

                  However, the courts have also developed a\u00a0\u201csingle\u2011member company exception\u201d<\/span>\u00a0to piercing the veil: where the sole shareholder and the company are virtually identical, and the shareholder has engaged in fraud or serious misconduct, courts will more readily pierce the veil than in a multi\u2011shareholder company. In\u00a0Nigerian Maritime Services v. Bunge SA<\/em>\u00a0(2023) LPELR\u201160232(CA), the Court of Appeal held that in a single\u2011member company, the presumption of separateness is\u00a0\u201cmore easily rebutted\u201d<\/span>\u00a0because there are no other shareholders to protect. The court pierced the veil based on diversion of corporate assets to the sole shareholder\u2019s personal account.<\/p>

                  Implication:<\/strong>\u00a0Owners of retroactively single\u2011member companies should strictly observe corporate formalities: maintain\u00a0separate bank accounts<\/strong>, keep\u00a0minutes<\/strong>\u00a0(even of sole member\u2019s resolutions), and avoid intermingling personal and corporate funds.\u00a0The veil is thinner, not non\u2011existent.<\/span><\/p><\/div><\/section><\/section>

                  8. Practical Recommendations<\/h1>
                  Stakeholder<\/th>Action<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
                  Owner of a retroactive\u00a0single\u2011member company<\/span><\/strong><\/td>

                  1.\u00a0Verify<\/strong>\u00a0that the register of members correctly shows only one member. File an update with\u00a0CAC<\/span>\u00a0if the second member was never formally removed.<\/p>

                  2.\u00a0Amend<\/strong>\u00a0the articles to remove plural references.<\/p>

                  3.\u00a0Execute<\/strong>\u00a0a nominee deed or plan for succession to avoid zero membership on death.<\/p><\/td><\/tr>

                  Legal advisor<\/strong><\/td>

                  1.\u00a0Review<\/strong>\u00a0pre\u20112020 companies in your portfolio; identify those that may have become single\u2011member by operation of law.<\/p>

                  2.\u00a0Advise<\/strong>\u00a0on amending articles, but also check if any existing\u00a0unanimous shareholder agreement (USA)<\/span>\u00a0assumes two parties. That USA may become void or require renegotiation.<\/p>

                  3.\u00a0Update<\/strong>\u00a0standard incorporation documents to remove the \u201ctwo subscribers\u201d template; use the new single\u2011subscriber template issued by CAC in 2022.<\/p><\/td><\/tr>

                  Creditor or counterparty<\/strong><\/td>

                  1. If contracting with a company that was originally two\u2011shareholder but is now single\u2011member, consider requesting a\u00a0personal guarantee<\/u>\u00a0from the sole shareholder. The corporate veil may be pierced more easily, but a guarantee is safer.<\/p>

                  2.\u00a0Check<\/strong>\u00a0the company\u2019s\u00a0CAC status<\/span>\u00a0to confirm it is still registered and not flagged for zero membership.<\/p><\/td><\/tr>

                  CAC<\/strong><\/td>

                  The Commission should issue a\u00a0public notice<\/strong>\u00a0clarifying the timeline for estate administration upon death of a sole shareholder. A\u00a09\u2011month grace period<\/span>\u00a0(similar to the UK\u2019s 6 months but extended) would reduce uncertainty.<\/p><\/div><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/section><\/section>

                  9. Conclusion<\/h1>

                  The retroactive application of\u00a0CAMA 2020\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0single\u2011shareholder provisions to pre\u20112020 companies is a classic example of\u00a0curative legislation<\/strong>. It has legitimised thousands of companies that were technically defective under the old law, saving them from dissolution and allowing small business owners to continue without the fiction of nominal second shareholders. The Supreme Court in\u00a0Okafor v. CAC<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0has wisely affirmed this retroactive effect.<\/p>

                  However, the regime has also created new challenges: the treatment of antiquated articles, the vulnerability of the company upon the sole shareholder\u2019s death, and the\u00a0heightened risk of veil\u2011piercing<\/span>. For legal practitioners, this is a fertile area for client advisory work, from amending articles to designing\u00a0succession structures<\/u>\u00a0that avoid the zero\u2011member abyss.<\/p>

                  Ultimately, Nigeria\u2019s embrace of the\u00a0single\u2011member company<\/span>, applied retroactively, aligns the country with global best practices (e.g., EU\u2019s Single\u2011Member Company Directive, UK\u2019s private limited company regime). It is a pro\u2011business reform. But as with all reforms, the devil is in the implementation. Owners and their advisors must actively manage the transition, or risk trading one set of problems for another.<\/p><\/div>

                  References<\/h2>
                  1. Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, Sections 18\u201319, 36\u201338, 247, 274, 330, 401, 603, 806, 871.<\/li>
                  2. Okafor v. Corporate Affairs Commission & Anor<\/em>\u00a0(2024) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1890) 45 (SC).<\/li>
                  3. Ajayi v. Lagos State Government<\/em>\u00a0(2025) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1898) 112 (CA).<\/li>
                  4. Re: Finepak Nigeria Ltd<\/em>\u00a0(2025) 3 TLRN 85 (FHC\/L\/CS\/2024\/332).<\/li>
                  5. Nigerian Maritime Services v. Bunge SA<\/em>\u00a0(2023) LPELR\u201160232(CA).<\/li>
                  6. Corporate Affairs Commission, Practice Direction No. CAC\/PD\/2021\/002:\u00a0Guidance on Single\u2011Member Companies<\/em>\u00a0(15 September 2021).<\/li>
                  7. CAC,\u00a0Guidelines on Transmission of Shares on Death<\/em>\u00a0(2023 edition).<\/li>
                  8. Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL).<\/li><\/ol><\/section><\/section>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                    One Is the New Many:\u00a0Retroactive Application\u00a0of CAMA 2020\u2019s Single\u2011Shareholder Provisions and the Transformation of Nigerian Company Law Abstract The\u00a0Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020\u00a0revolutionised Nigerian corporate law by permitting a single person to form and operate a private company, a departure from the previous minimum of two shareholders. Less noticed, however, is the Act\u2019s\u00a0retroactive application\u00a0of this single\u2011shareholder regime to companies incorporated before 2020. Through a combination of transitional provisions and judicial interpretation, thousands of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":991009,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-991004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402.jpeg",1376,768,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-150x150.jpeg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-300x167.jpeg",300,167,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-768x429.jpeg",640,358,true],"large":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-1024x572.jpeg",640,358,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402.jpeg",1376,768,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402.jpeg",1376,768,false],"azure-news-block-medium":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-660x470.jpeg",660,470,true],"azure-news-banner":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-860x630.jpeg",860,630,true]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"1st Attormeys","author_link":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"One Is the New Many:\u00a0Retroactive Application\u00a0of CAMA 2020\u2019s Single\u2011Shareholder Provisions and the Transformation of Nigerian Company Law Abstract The\u00a0Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020\u00a0revolutionised Nigerian corporate law by permitting a single person to form and operate a private company, a departure from the previous minimum of two shareholders. Less noticed, however, is the Act\u2019s\u00a0retroactive…","rttpg_featured_image_url":{"full":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402.jpeg",1376,768,false],"landscape":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402.jpeg",1376,768,false],"portraits":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402.jpeg",1376,768,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-150x150.jpeg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-300x167.jpeg",300,167,true],"large":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-1024x572.jpeg",640,358,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402.jpeg",1376,768,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402.jpeg",1376,768,false],"azure-news-block-medium":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-660x470.jpeg",660,470,true],"azure-news-banner":["https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Corporate_Affairs_Commission_Nig\u2026_202605130402-860x630.jpeg",860,630,true]},"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"1st Attormeys","author_link":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/author\/admin\/"},"rttpg_comment":0,"rttpg_category":"General<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"One Is the New Many:\u00a0Retroactive Application\u00a0of CAMA 2020\u2019s Single\u2011Shareholder Provisions and the Transformation of Nigerian Company Law Abstract The\u00a0Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020\u00a0revolutionised Nigerian corporate law by permitting a single person to form and operate a private company, a departure from the previous minimum of two shareholders. Less noticed, however, is the Act\u2019s\u00a0retroactive…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/991004","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=991004"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/991004\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":991012,"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/991004\/revisions\/991012"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/991009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=991004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=991004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1stattorneys.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=991004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}