Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This appeal concerns certain proceedings consequent upon an arbitration between the appellants and the respondent. The matter arose in this way.

[2] The appellants and the respondent were parties to several agreements each of which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes having arisen between them, the parties agreed to refer these to arbitration. For the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to go into the events that preceded the making of the award or the nature of the claims made by the parties against each other. Suffice to say that the arbitrator appointed by the parties, by an award dated 8 December 1992, which he published on 28 December 1992, found for the appellants (plaintiffs in the arbitration) on the issue of liability in respect of some heads of claim but disallowed certain others. However, he declined to assess quantum, taking the view that he was not authorised to do so. So, for all practical purposes, the findings on the issue of liability was an interim award. The appellants were dissatisfied with the arbitrator's refusal to adjudicate on the issue of quantum of damages. They entered into correspondence with him on this matter. We will not re-produce it here. In consequence of representations made to him by the appellants, the arbitrator, on 13 May 1993, wrote conceding that he was mistaken in the view he had taken as to his authority and proceeded to fix dates of hearing to assess quantum.

[3] In the meantime, on 5 February 1993, the respondent filed an application in the High Court to set aside the arbitrator's award of 28 December 1992. On 30 July 1993, the appellants took out a notice of motion in which they claimed the following relief:

(i) A declaration that the award made in the above captioned references to arbitration between the parties and dated 8 December 1992 is an interim award on liability only;

(ii) A declaration that the arbitrator in the above captioned references to arbitration between the parties, Dato' Dr Peter Mooney, having made and published an Interim Award on liability dated 8 December 1992 has the jurisdiction and authority to do all things necessary to complete the above captioned references to arbitration such that a quantified Final Award may be made and published and is not functus officio until the said Final Award is made and published.

Further or alternatively

An Order granting an extension of time to extend the period within which the respondent are required to apply to remit the award published by the arbitrator dated 8 December 1992 pursuant to s 23 of the Arbitration Act 1952 be extended to the date of filing of this application:

and

An Order that the award made between the parties to the above-mentioned arbitration, dated 8 December 1992 be remitted for amendment to reflect clearly that:

(a) the award was an Interim Award on liability only;

and

(b) the arbitrator is seised of jurisdiction to complete the reference to arbitration in respect of the quantum portion.

(iii) An Order that the costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the applicant.

(iv) Further or other relief.

[4] Following this, the respondent, on 23 September 1993, took out a notice of motion in which it claimed an injunction restraining the arbitrator from conducting any further proceedings in the arbitration until further order.

[5] When the appellants' application and that of the respondent claiming injunctive relief came on for hearing on 13 October 1993, Counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection as to the correctness of the procedure employed by the appellants. The learned Judge, having heard argument on the point, ruled against the respondent and adjourned the hearing on merits to another date. The respondent's application for an injunction was not heard because the appellants gave an undertaking not to pursue any further proceedings before the arbitrator.

[6] When the appellants' motion came to be heard on its merits on 17 August 1994, Counsel for the r