The adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by addressing a premature payment claim, thus invalidating the adjudication outcome under CIPAA 2012.

[1] These three appeals arose out of an adjudication decision dated 22 May 2017 that was rendered in the respondent's favour. The respondent applied to enforce the adjudication decision vide BA-24C-31-06-2017 whilst the appellant filed an application vide BA-24C-32-06-2017 to set aside that adjudication decision. In BA-24C-31-06-2017, the appellant filed an application to stay the adjudication decision pending final determination by arbitration - encl 5.

[2] All three applications were heard together, with the court proceeding first with the appellant's application to set aside the adjudication decision [BA- 24C-32-06-2017].

[3] After hearing the parties, the learned judge dismissed both applications filed by the appellant while the respondent's application for enforcement was allowed. The appellant appealed against all three decisions.

[4] All three appeals were heard together, namely:

i. B-02(C)(A)2277-11/2017 - appeal against the order allowing the respondent's application to enforce the adjudication decision;

ii. B-02(C)(IM)2278-11/2017 - appeal against the order dismissing the appellant's application for stay of adjudication decision;

iii. B-02(C)(A)2280-11/2017 - appeal against the order dismissing the appellant's application to set aside the adjudication decision.

[5] The parties agreed to proceed with the third appeal, the outcome of which will have a bearing and determination of the remaining two appeals. We, too agreed.

[6] After due consideration of the arguments and the records of appeal in respect of this third appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudication decision dated 22 May 2017. Following this decision, the remaining two appeals were allowed and the respective orders of the High court were accordingly set aside.