Abstract
Arbitration has become the preferred mode of dispute resolution because of its numerous advantages such as its efficiency in time, cost and finality of award over litigation. As arbitration grows, however, its advantages over litigation seem to be waning. The need for mechanisms that will revitalise the attraction arbitration once had has become imperative. One of these mechanisms is the concept of ex aequo et bono. Although a number of researchers have paid some attention to this, most of the studies on ex aequo et bono only take a cursory look at the concept. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, studies that seek to explicate the contributions of ex aequo et bono are few in number. Such a gap adds to the misconceptions about the concept, leading to the potential loss of value of the concept on stakeholders in international arbitration environment. The consequence of such misconceptions is an international commercial arbitration space fraught with costly and prolonged arbitration. Consequently, this current study seeks to address this gap by examining the place and value of the concept of ex aequo et bono in international commercial arbitration, with particular emphasis on the question; whether the arbitral proceedings can practically abstain widely or totally from the application of law of a particular legal system.