Facts:

Facts:

The appellant and the respondents entered into an agreement titled Agbami Unit Agreement (AUA) wherein the parties agreed to jointly develop Agbami Oil Field. The oil field stretches across two lease areas covered by Oil Mining Lease (OML) 127 and 128. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents were lessees of OML 127 while the appellant and the 4th respondents were contractors under the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) with the 5th respondent as lessee of OML 128. The parties agreed to allocate costs and production in accordance with the Nominal Tract Participation of 65% for OML 127 and 35% for OML 128. Arbitration clause was also inserted in the contract.

The parties also agreed that the tract participation in both OMLs could be adjusted in the future. The procedure of equity adjustment and re-determination was laid out in the agreement. The parties further agreed that the services of an expert would be employed in the event that a dispute arose between over the data to be used as basis for the adjustments and re-determination process of the equity participation.

In 2009, the parties carried out an equity determination process which resulted in the reduction of OML 127 to 62% while OML 128 was increased to 37.5%. The parties agreed that this was going to be the equity participation until a re-determination was done. In 2012, new data arose from the operation of the OMLs indicating that the Agbami Oil Fields were much larger than previously believed. This discovery led the 1st respondent to trigger the re-determination and adjustment process in order to review the parties’ equity participation. It was anticipated that further review would increase the equity participation of the lessees of OML 127. In the course of the re-determination of the parties’ equity participation, the appellant alleged that some data were submitted by the 1st and 4th respondents after the deadline stipulated in the agreement and consequently declared a dispute.

In accordance with the agreement, the dispute was referred to an expert who declared, after evaluating the records that the contested data were validly submitted and therefore should be included in the re-determination exercise. The appellant was aggrieved by the declaration of the expert and activated the arbitration clause. The matter was therefore submitted to arbitration. The appellant first filed a notice of arbitration in October, 2013 against all the respondents and subsequently filed an amended notice in November 2013 by which it effectively removed the 5th respondent from the arbitral proceedings. After hearing the parties, the tribunal dismissed the claims of the appellant.

The appellant was further aggrieved by the award and filed an originating motion at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division seeking an order of the court to set aside the award. An application was also filed to join the 5th respondent. The court dismissed the claims and the appellant filed a notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The 5th respondent was dissatisfied with some aspects of the judgment of the Federal High Court and also filed a cross appeal.

One of the issues raised in the appeal is whether the lower court was right to have concluded that the tribunal properly carried out its primary assignment of construing the agreement when there was no evidence on the record to show how it arrived at the decision.