PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Where a specific question of law is submitted to the arbitrator for decision and they decide it, the fact that the decision is erroneous does not make the award bad on its face so as to permit its being set aside.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ogundare, JSC, in Taylor Woodrow (Nig.) Ltd v. Suddeutsche Etna-Werk GMBH (1993) NLC-431991(SC) at p. 17; Paras B–C.
"Where a specific question of law is submitted to the arbitrator for his decision and he decides it, the fact that the decision is erroneous does not make the award bad on its face so as to permit its being set aside."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

When parties specifically submit a legal question to arbitration, they accept the arbitrator’s decision on that question even if erroneous. The arbitrator hasn’t exceeded jurisdiction or committed misconduct—they decided what parties asked them to decide. Error alone doesn’t justify setting aside the award because parties chose the arbitrator as their judge on that issue. This differs from situations where arbitrators decide unreferred legal questions or where error appears on non-referred points. The principle enforces parties’ choice to have arbitrators, not courts, resolve specific legal issues. It promotes finality and respects arbitration’s consensual nature. Parties wanting legal accuracy on specific questions should exclude them from arbitration or include appeal rights in their arbitration agreement.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE