MALAK NASSER VS OXFORD PROPERTIES LIMITED

By the present Originating Motion, the Claimant/Applicant (Applicant) seeks an Order setting aside the Additional Award of the Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Kofi Quashigah dated the 9th of February, 2023.

A summary of the facts deposed to in the affidavit sworn to by the father and next friend of the Applicant are as follows:

On the 14th of March, 2022, this Court stayed proceedings in Suit No/GJ/ 0400/2022 and referred the parties to arbitration. At the end of arbitral proceedings, Prof Kofi Quashigah who was appointed Sole Arbitrator by the Parties, granted the reliefs sought by the Applicant. The said Award delivered on the 30th of November 2022 (original Award) is attached to the Applicant’s affidavit as Exhibit TN 1.

On the 17th of January, 2023, the Applicant was served with a process titled; Notice of Correction of and addition to Award per Section 53 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) (the Act) requesting the Applicant to file submissions. The said Notice had been issued pursuant to an application filed by the Respondent /Respondent (Respondent) requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to;

a) Correct a computation error in the Arbitration award,

b) Make an additional award to the Arbitration Award

This Notice has been attached to the Applicant’s affidavit as Exhibit TN 2.

The Applicant says in the submissions filed on her behalf by Counsel (attached as Exhibit TN 3) that she resisted the said Application in earnest on the following grounds;

i) That the award of interest as used by the Tribunal is a question of applicable law and not a computational error. Consequently, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the applicable law under Section 53 of the Act

ii) That the Respondent did not present any claim at the arbitral proceeding for which an additional Award could be made under Section 53 of the Act.

The Applicant laments that the Arbitrator paid no heed to the challenge mounted to his jurisdiction upon these grounds and proceeded to render an Additional Award in favour of the Respondent.

Applicant says that the Arbitrator’s Additional Award which was granted in disregard of the limits imposed on his powers under Section 53 of the Act goes to jurisdiction and should therefore be set aside.

In response, Respondent says it is “baffled’ by the instant Application. It says all it sought by the said application was a correction of the initial Award dated the 30th of November, 2022. This, it says became necessary because the Appli