From the ruling, it is apparent that the court followed section 10 of the Arbitration Act which prevents courts from intervening in matters governed by the act unless otherwise provided. Under section 36 of the Act, there is no provision for the court to use their inherent powers to enforce an arbitral award where the mandatory requirements for such enforcement have not been complied with. Thus, the court could not use the inherent powers of the Court under section 3A to cure the failure of the applicant to comply with mandatory statutory requirements.
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act allows the court to use their inherent powers to achieve the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of the court. However, these inherent powers do not allow the court to overlook mandatory statutory requirements, such as the ones enumerated under section 36 (2). Thus, a party who seeks to enforce their award but derogates from section 36 (2) by failing to produce a duly authenticated original arbitral award or a duly certified copy of it will not have their arbitral award enforced, irrespective of the inherent powers of the court.
SUMMARY-DAVID CHABEDA & ANOTHER v FRANCIS INGANJI