PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

It is misconduct on the arbitrator's part where there is an error of law appearing on the face of the award on a point not specifically referred to the arbitrator for decision.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ogundare, JSC, in Taylor Woodrow (Nig.) Ltd v. Suddeutsche Etna-Werk GMBH (1993) NLC-431991(SC) at pp. 15–16; Paras A–B.
"It is misconduct on the part of the arbitrator where there is an error of law which appears on the face of the award on a point not specifically referred to the arbitrator for decision."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Arbitrators must confine themselves to issues submitted for arbitration. “Misconduct” (a term of art in arbitration law) occurs when arbitrators exceed their mandate by deciding legal questions not referred to them, particularly if they err on such questions. This doesn’t mean moral wrongdoing but jurisdictional overreach. If the submission limits the arbitrator to specific issues, deciding other issues—especially incorrectly—justifies setting aside the award. This protects parties from arbitrators exceeding authority and ensures awards rest on matters parties agreed to arbitrate. However, if parties submit general disputes to arbitration, arbitrators can decide all legal questions necessarily arising. The principle maintains arbitration’s consensual boundaries while preventing unauthorized expansion of arbitral jurisdiction

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE