The reasoning of the court was founded on the principle of non-interference with arbitration matters as stipulated under section 10 of the Act. It refrained from re-examining the matters already canvassed by the arbitral tribunal to reinforce the finality of arbitral awards. Moreover, it was apparent that the jurisdiction of the court in this matter was confined to the grounds stipulated under section 35 and 37. Failure to prove these grounds would restrict the court from asserting its authority over the arbitral matter. The court was also keen on the swift nature of arbitration. This was because it refused the enjoinder of new parties with unnecessary delay especially after the applicant had the opportunity to enjoin them during the arbitral proceedings.
- Section 5 of the Act provides that if a party fails to raise an objection to non-compliance within the requisite time frame, such a party will be held to have waived their right to object. Where no timelines are prescribed by the parties, the party has the responsibility to raise the objection without undue delay. Waiver of the right to object will prevent a party from raising an objection in any further proceedings, including proceedings before a court of law.
- Section 35(2)(a)(vi) of the act provides that an award may be set aside on grounds of fraud, bribery, undue influence, or corruption. Jurisprudence from the Court of Appeal provides that a court may exercise original jurisdiction in investigating an arbitral matter that manifests either of the aforementioned grounds. Such original jurisdiction allows the court to admit new evidence. However, if a party does not prove how the arbitral proceedings were tainted with either fraud, bribery, undue influence, or corruption, the court will cease to exercise original jurisdiction and decline to admit new evidence presented by the parties.