CORAM
UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OKAY ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDIGBE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondents contract with the appellant contained an arbitration clause. Differences arose and the appellant ignored the respondents request to appoint an arbitrator within time. The respondents applied to the court and an arbitrator was appointed.
HELD
The court held that the learned trial judge was right in law to have exercised his powers and jurisdiction under section 6 of the Arbitration Act.
ISSUES
Whether a judge has the jurisdiction to appoint a named arbitrator to go into the matter in difference between parties where one party to the proceedings alone has applied to the court to exercise such powers on the default of the other party in the proceedings.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JUDGES RIGHT TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR
The true nature and function of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not appear to be fully appreciated. Arbitration merely embodies the agreement of both parties that if any dispute should occur with regard to the obligations which the other party has undertaken to the other, such dispute should be settled by a tribunal of their own constitution and choice. The appropriate remedy therefore for a breach of a submission is not damages but its enforcement. So where a party refuses within given time after due notice to have an arbitrator appointed, the court has full power and jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator on an application properly made by the party who has served such notice” PER UDO UDOMA JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
ARBITRATION ACT (CAP 13) 1914
ENGLISH ARBITRATION ACT 1889(52 & 53 VICT.C 49)