Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited where reasons are discernible and no patent legal defect is shown.

Judicial interference with an arbitral award is confined to patent legal infirmity or an evident jurisdictional defect, and the court will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another conclusion is possible. Objections alleging error apparent on the face of the record and that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the contract failed where the award stayed within the agreement and no manifest defect was shown. On claims 8 and 9, the award set out the rival contentions, referred to the material relied upon, and disclosed sufficient reasons for the lump-sum compensation. The challenge was therefore rejected and the award was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the objections to the arbitral award on the grounds of error apparent on the face of the record, travel beyond the contract, and absence of reasons in respect of claims 8 and 9 were sustainable.

Analysis: The court held that the arbitrator is the best judge of the quantity and quality of evidence and that the court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere on merits merely because a different view is possible. The objections against claims 2, 3, 4, 7 and 11 disclosed no error apparent on the face of the award and did not show that the arbitrator had acted outside the agreement. As to claims 8 and 9, the award recorded the rival contentions in detail, noted the material relied upon by the claimant, and disclosed discernible reasons for awarding compensation. The court also held that an arbitrator is not required to write an elaborate judgment and that the reasons for the lump-sum award were sufficiently indicated.

Conclusion: The objections failed and the arbitral award was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The award was sustained, made a rule of the court, and a decree was passed in terms of the award with interest from the date of decree till realisation.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial interference with an arbitral award is confined to patent legal infirmity or an evident jurisdictional defect, and an award will not be set aside where the reasons are discernible and the challenge is essentially an attack on the merits or on appreciation of evidence.

---