The dispute between the parties was submitted to an ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL. Consequent upon the reference pursuant to Exhibit 7 - JACKUP BARGE CONTRACT NO. LGST-92-03, the parties filed and exchanged their pleadings. The Appellant further amended its statement of claim and in its claim or Relief No. IV appearing at page 66 of the Records, it appears as follows:
-
v
U. S. $10, 000. 00 (Ten Million U. S. Dollars) as aggravated damages for conspiracy with the claimant's Joint Service Partner to breach the JACK - UP Barge Contract No. LGST. 92.03 as renewed, to the economic injury of the claimant"
[Italics supplied]
On the completion of the trial, the Tribunal in its decision on 14th March, 1996 and titled ARBITRAL AWARD spanning from pages 90 - 160 of the Records, recognized that the Appellant was only entitled to nominal damages for the breach of contract identified, but in the end, awarded a lump sum for the breach and the tort of negligence. The Respondent being dissatisfied with the said award, on 19th March, 1996, took out a civil summons at the Federal High Court, Lagos and therein, sought for an order that the said award, be set-aside or in the Alternative, for an order refusing the enforcement of the said award.
The Respondent also on the same 19th March, 1996 filed a Notice of Originating Motion in respect of the said reliefs. The grounds upon which the Applicant relied on are as follows:
-
a
"that the award contains decisions on matters which are beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; and
-
b
that the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration".
Particulars were duly supplied. In paragraph 14 of the said particulars, the following appear:
See pages 4 to 6 (vol. 1) of the Records:
On the same 19th March, 1996, the Respondent filed both an application ex parte for an interim injunction and an interlocutory order of injunction restraining the Appellant from enforcing the said award pending the determination of the substantive application for injunction and pending the determination of the originating motion respectively. See pages 43 8 and 448 (vol. 3) of the Records.
The Appellant on its part, took out an originating summons on 25th March, 1996 wherein it sought therein for an order directing that the said award, be recongnised and enforced as the judgment of the Court in the same manner and to the same effect. It also sought for an order granting leave to the Appellant, to enforce payment of 21 % per annum interest on the said award from the date of the award, till the final and complete payment. It relied for the said summons on.
-
a
"The certified true copy of the original award made by the Tribunal.
-
b
The original arbitration agreement as contained in the certified copy of the Jack-up Barge Contract No. LGST 92-03 (hereinafter called "the Agreement") and the amendment (Renewal) therein"
See pages 462 and 463 of Vol. 3 of the Records. I note that the Appellant, on 4th April, 1996, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the said application for an injunction by the Respondent and relied on three (3) grounds which, in my respectful view, are irrelevant to the narrow issue for determination in this appeal. The Respondent did file a counter-affidavit in respect of the Preliminary Objection. See pages 470 and 473 of the said Records.
However, both applications afore-stated, were heard together by the learned trial Judge-Ukeje, J. (as he/she then was). In a considered ruling (spanning from pages 583 to 631 of the said Records) delivered on 14th November, 1996, His Lordship, dismissed the Preliminary Objection. In respect of "Consequential Orders", he/she made, various findings of facts and at the said page 63 thereof, he/she stated as follows:
-
2
"For all those, and the other findings supra, I hereby set aside Arbitral Award dated 14th March, 1996 in terms of Section 219(2) of the Arbitration Act (Cap. 19 LFN 1990). Equally, the substantial damages of US $ 750,000 payment is set aside".
-
3
Accordingly, the Applicant's application therefore, succeeds. For, in the case of KSUB v. FANZ Construction Company Limited (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 258) 595, the Supreme Court held that "A High Court has the power to set aside the award of an Arbitration".
-
4
Conversely, for the reasons adduced supra, I hereby refuse to recognize the said Arbitral Award, and therefore, I withhold leave to the Respondents to enforce the Arbitral Award aforesaid. Accordingly, the Respondent's Application dated 25th March, 1996, fails and is hereby dismissed. Those are the findings of this Court in this matter".
The Appellant, aggrieved by the said Ruling, appealed to the Court of Appeal which found the appeal devoid of merit, and dismissed it. Aggrieved again, the Respondent/Appellant appealed to this Court.
