CHIEF S. A. DADA VS OTUNBA ADENIRAN OGUNSANYA
July 11, 2025YAWALE SHARFAL VS THE STATE
July 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1986) Legalpedia 47310 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
LAGOS
Fri Apr 10, 1992
Suit Number: SC.73/1986
CORAM
E.O.I. AKPATA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
COMMERCE ASSURANCE LTD
APPELLANTS
ALHAJI BURAIMOH ALLI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
None.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff claimed for a declaration that the defendant should pay the costs awarded by an arbitration panel. The learned trial judge granted to the Plaintiff the declaration he sought and the defendant appealed.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that an arbitrator’s award is not per se final and the award must not only be accepted by both sides to the arbitration but must also be valid and enforceable.
ISSUES
Whether a plaintiff whose claim was struck out and not dismissed by the court is estopped from bringing afresh action before the court to enable its claim to be determined on the merits
RATIONES DECIDENDI
TWO ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT OF AN AWARD
“Thus the two alternative methods are fundamentally different. The summary method treats the award as an existing judgment and only seeks to enforce it. The enforcement by action seeks to get a judgment in terms of the award. There can, therefore, be no question of a proceeding by way of a summary procedure to enforce the award being pleaded as estoppel per rem judicatam, as in that case the court itself decides nothing. It simply enforces the award as if it were a judgment. Where there is doubt, as I have stated, and it becomes unwise to enforce the award summarily, the court simply strikes out the application to enforce the award summarily, leaving the applicant free to commence an action.” Per NNAEMEKA-AGU, JSC
CASES CITED
CASES MENTIONED
Baker v. Yorkshire Fire & Life Assurance Co. (1892) 1 Q.B.144
re Brooks & Co. v. Peters Rushton & Co. Ltd. (1919) 1 K.B.491 at 496
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (Cap. 19 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990
