Facts:

There was an arbitral proceeding on a Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement (GSPA) made by the parties on 20th March, 1998. In the process of settlement thereof, the parties re-negotiated the terms of the GSPA and entered into a Gas Processing Agreement (GPA) on 15th March, 2002. In the GPA, the appellant, a producer of gas, was to supply Rich Gas to the respondent, an indigenous gas processing operator and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) producer, to its Gas Processing Facility at Cawtthorne Channel, Rivers State. The appellant made insufficient and sporadic supplies of the Rich Gas to the respondent which could not maximize the potential of its Gas Processing Facility, As a result, the respondent, in consonance with clause 22.4 of the GPA, served the appellant with a Notice of Dispute on 7th April, 2014. In turn, the appellant terminated the GPA, via a preliminary Notice of Termination, on 7th May, 2014. In line with the GPA, the parties submitted their dispute to arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (the ICC Rules). The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (the ICC Court) appointed Prof. Oba Nsugbe, QC, SAN, as the President of the Arbitration Tribunal (the tribunal) and confirmed appointment of Mrs. Dorothy Ufot, SAN and Mrs. Doyin Rhodes-Vivour, SAN as the co-arbitrators appointed by the respondent and the appellant respectively. After several extensions by the ICC Court, the final award was published on 30th May 2017. The President and Mrs. Doyin Rhodes-Viviour, SAN delivered a majority award whilst the co-arbitrator, Mrs. Dorothy Ufot, SAN, delivered a dissenting opinion – a minority award.
The respondent vexed with the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal, prayed the High Court (lower Court) it to set aside the final award. The appellant, upon service of the respondent’s motion on it, filed the necessary processes in opposition to it. It also filed a motion, which sought for the enforcement of the final majority award. The appellant also filed a motion for the consolidation of the two applications, which was granted. The lower court further heard the consolidated motions, and in a considered ruling, set aside the award.
Aggrieved by the decision of the lower Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.