The decision of the court was underpinned by the guiding principles for judicial authority. These principles include the mandate to administer justice without undue regard for procedural technicalities. The court also favored a pro-arbitration policy by seeking to uphold the terms of the arbitration agreement where the conduct of the parties was in conformity with the said agreement. This shows the respect for the finality of arbitral awards. It also demonstrates that arbitration is an end in itself, and not a means to a court hearing.
- Section 3 (1) of the Arbitration Rules of 1997 stipulates those applications made under 12, 15, 17, 18, 28 and 39 should be made via originating summons. However, this is a procedural requirement and failure to abide by it will not necessarily invalidate the application. This is owing to the court being guided by the principles under Article 159 which require them to administer justice without undue regard for procedural technicalities.
- Section 10 of the Arbitration Act requires courts to refrain from interfering with arbitration unless provided for in the Act. Thus, where a court finds that an arbitration agreement was properly concluded, it will uphold the said agreement
39- SUMMARY- TEAM CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V CARNATION PROPERTIES LIMITED
39- RULING- TEAM CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V CARNATION PROPERTIES LIMITED