LEGAL PRINCIPLE: ARBITRATION LAW — Arbitral Awards — Enforcement — Court’s Role Limited to Enforcement Where Award Not Challenged
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The only jurisdiction conferred on the court regarding an arbitral award is to give leave to enforce it as a judgment unless there is a real ground for doubting the validity of the award.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Ras Palgazi Construction Company Limited v. FCDA (2001) NLC-4596(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras D–A.
"The only jurisdiction conferred on the court is to give leave to enforce the award as a judgment unless there is real ground for doubting the validity of the award. In other words if upon an application to enforce the award, the Judge finds that the validity of the award is doubtful, he can refuse leave. See sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court has no other business with regard to the award except where it is expressly provided in the Act. Section 34 of the Act buttresses this point. It provides: 'A court shall not intervene in any matter governed by this Act except where so provided in the Act.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The court’s role in arbitration awards is primarily enforcement. The court grants leave to enforce the award as a judgment. The only ground to refuse enforcement is a real doubt about the award’s validity. The court cannot review the merits. Section 34 of the Act explicitly limits court intervention to what is provided. The principle ensures that arbitration remains a final and efficient dispute resolution mechanism. The losing party must challenge the award through setting aside proceedings, not by resisting enforcement on merits. The court will not re-evaluate the evidence or the arbitrator’s reasoning. The award is binding and enforceable unless successfully challenged.