Facts:

The appellants and the 2nd respondent are parties to a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) for lifting of crude oil. The agreement between the parties provided for the allocation and sharing of available crude. Under the contract, the parties are to submit any dispute to arbitration and Nigerian law was chosen as the applicable law. The allocation of available crude between the parties was to be done in accordance with Royalty Oil, Cost Oil, Tax Oil and Profit Oil. Royalty Oil and Tax Oil were allocated to the 2nd respondent while Cost Oil and Profit Oil were allocated to the appellants. The appellants were vested with the responsibility to prepare the Petroleum Profit Tax (PPT) returns for every accounting year based on the allocation and lifting formula. The returns were to be filed by the 2nd respondent with the 1st respondent. The appellants alleged that in violation of the PSC, the 2nd respondent had been lifting crude oil in excess of its share. It also alleged that the 2nd respondent violated the agreement by unilaterally altering the PPT returns prepared by the appellants and instead preparing its own PPT returns on behalf of the appellants and filing same with the 1st respondent. The appellant further alleged that the PPT returns prepared and filed by the 2nd respondent were in excess of their tax obligations because they were prepared based on the excessive lifting of the crude allocation by the 2nd respondent.

After several unsuccessful attempts by the appellants to ensure that the 2nd respondent complies with the PSC, they activated the arbitration clause in the PSC and referred the matter to arbitration. After hearing the parties, the arbitral tribunal gave its award in favour of the appellants and held that the 2nd respondent was in violation of the PSC. The 1st respondent, although not a party to the arbitral proceedings, became aggrieved by the award and consequently filed a suit against the parties to the PSC at the Federal High Court, Abuja Division. The gravamen of the 1st respondent’s suit was that the issues referred to the tribunal border on taxation and government revenue and as such are matters that are inarbitrable and falls outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The 1st respondent also
contended that the award affected its statutory duties of assessing and determining the Petroleum Profit Tax to be paid by parties to a PSC. The trial court heard the parties on the suit and gave judgment in favour of the 1st respondent setting aside the award on the ground that the issues before the tribunal were inarbitrable and that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine them.

The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal High Court and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division urging the court to overrule and set aside the decision of the court. One of the issues for determination is whether the learned trial judge had jurisdiction to intervene in arbitration proceedings having regard to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2004.