Devtraco also objected to the arbitrator's directive requiring refunds to attract compound interest calculated at the treasury bill rate, arguing that such a remedy had neither been agreed by the parties nor requested during the arbitration.

Devtraco's Case

According to the company acting through the learned Kizito Beyuo, the disputed orders went beyond the issues submitted to arbitration and introduced entirely new contractual obligations and remedies.

Devtraco argued that while an arbitral tribunal derives its authority from the parties' arbitration agreement, that authority is confined to the specific disputes and reliefs presented for determination. It therefore contended that by fashioning remedies that neither party had sought, the arbitrator acted outside his jurisdiction, making those portions of the award liable to be set aside under section 58 of Act 798.

The application, however, did not seek to overturn the entire arbitral award. Instead, Devtraco maintained that only the specific directions that allegedly exceeded the arbitrator's authority should be invalidated.

The Court's Analysis

In dismissing the application, Justice Lodoh reaffirmed the well-established principle that an arbitral tribunal must remain within the limits of the dispute referred to it by the parties. He noted that although an arbitration clause defines the outer boundaries of a tribunal's jurisdiction, the actual dispute submitted through the parties' pleadings determines the specific matters that may be adjudicated.

The judge in upholding arguments of the learned Evans Arthur, Counsel for the Respondent also discussed the doctrine of ne ultra petita, which prevents courts and arbitral tribunals from granting relief beyond what the parties have requested.

However, the court observed that legal proceedings often include a residual prayer seeking "such further or other relief as may be just" or "as the tribunal deems appropriate." According to Justice Lodoh, such a prayer does not confer unlimited jurisdiction on an arbitrator. Rather, it permits the tribunal to grant reliefs that are incidental, consequential or reasonably necessary to completely determine the dispute before it.

Crucially, the court found that Devtraco itself had included such a residual prayer in its counterclaim during the arbitration, asking for "such further or other reliefs to which it might be entitled and the Tribunal deems appropriate."

Justice Lodoh held that this residual prayer empowered the tribunal to grant consequential orders connected to the issues before it, provided those orders were fair, lawful and logically related to the dispute. It did not, however, authorise an arbitrator to determine entirely new disputes or grant fundamentally different remedies unrelated to the pleadings.

Having examined the impugned portions of the award, the court concluded that the challenged directions were all reasonably connected to the contractual dispute and were necessary to facilitate its resolution. Consequently, the arbitrator had not exceeded his jurisdiction.

The application was therefore dismissed.

Why the Decision Matters

The ruling offers useful guidance on the scope of arbitral powers under Ghanaian law and the interpretation of residual prayers for relief in arbitration proceedings.

In affirming that arbitrators cannot venture beyond the disputes submitted by the parties, the High Court made it clear that they retain the authority to fashion consequential remedies that are incidental to the issues before them. The decision also serves as a reminder that a party relying on a broad residual prayer for relief may later find it difficult to argue that an arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by granting remedies reasonably connected to the dispute.

For arbitration practitioners and commercial parties alike, the judgment highlights the importance of carefully framing pleadings and appreciating the legal consequences of including broad residual prayers in arbitral proceedings.