Dissatisfied. 2. Knowing what you know would you have gone to this program? Yes No Not Sure
Dissatisfied. Xxxxxx elevated the case to the Supreme Court. **Issues:**
Dissatisfied. “7. Very much dissatisfied.” : insulated : uninsulated 100 80 Percentage 60 40 20 75– 80– 85– 90– 95– WECPNL Figure 4.4 Percentage of the response on the annoyance vs. WECPNL in relation to sound insulation.
Dissatisfied d. Very Dissatisfied e. I have not used any family planning services f. I was not aware that I was enrolled in the Family Planning Waiver program (if selected, end survey)
Dissatisfied d. Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. One of the issues for determination is Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the arbitrator had given sufficient reason for the application of the prevailing rate of exchange to the contract between the parties. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the rate of exchange of US $1: N4.2 did not apply to any of the payments due to the Respondent. He submitted that the arbitrator found that the Respondent is entitled to payment by reference to US Dollars and the reference exchange rate of US$1: N4.2 in the Agreement, is applicable in computing the value of services rendered by the Respondent to the Appellant. It was submitted that the Appellant has no grouse against that finding but has a grouse that having made that finding, the arbitrator failed to put it into effect and instead, went outside/beyond the scope of the Agreement of the parties to base his award on another exchange rate. Learned counsel further contended that it was the error of the arbitrator in basing his award on the prevailing exchange rate, that the Appellant sought to remedy at the lower Court unsuccessfully. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the rate of exchange of US $1: N4.2 did not apply to any of the payments due to the Respondent. He submitted that the arbitrator found that the Respondent is entitled to payment by reference to US Dollars and the reference exchange rate of US$1: N4.2 in the Agreement, is applicable in computing the value of services rendered by the Respondent to the Appellant. It was submitted that the Appellant has no grouse against that finding but has a grouse that having made that finding, the arbitrator failed to put it into effect and instead, went outside/beyond the scope of the Agreement of the parties to base his award on another exchange rate. Learned counsel further contended that it was the error of the arbitrator in basing his award on the prevailing exchange rate, that the Appellant sought to remedy at the lower Court unsuccessfully In resolving the issue, the appellate Court observed a provision in the agreement which states that: Any payments pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to and always in accordance with all applicable Nigerian Laws including the Nigerian Banking Currency Exchange Laws and the Tax Laws of the Inland Revenue Department. Consequent upon which the award was made in favour of the Respondent. On this, the Court held that: Having regard to the Agreem...
