Wakilii

Ainslie v Morrison (Civil Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 96 · 1951 Appeals Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Cross-appeals from High Court of Tanganyika refusing applications to remit arbitration award
Decision
Arbitration award upheld; both cross-appeals dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that an arbitration award may only be remitted where there is an error of law on the face of the award, meaning a legal proposition stated in the award or incorporated documents which is demonstrably erroneous. Where an arbitrator refers to the law but deliberately refrains from stating a legal proposition, there is no error of law on the face of the award. The arbitrator's award compensating the second partner for the first partner's retention of trustee remuneration did not contain such an error and should stand.

Outcome

Arbitration award upheld; both cross-appeals dismissed

Facts

Morrison and Ainslie were partners in a law firm. In 1939, Morrison was appointed trustee in the bankruptcy of Hasmani at remuneration fixed by creditors on a percentage basis. Morrison informed Ainslie of the appointment but did not inform him that the firm would act as advocates for the petitioning creditors and for Morrison as trustee. After Ainslie joined the Army, Morrison found himself single-handed and acted both as trustee and as advocate in the bankruptcy. Ainslie understood the trusteeship was undertaken on behalf of the partnership and claimed the remuneration should be divided accordingly. Morrison maintained he was entitled to retain all trustee remuneration. The parties referred their dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Ainslie one-third of Morrison's net earnings as trustee. Both parties applied to the High Court to remit the award on various grounds. The High Court refused both applications. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to remit the arbitration award on the ground that section 81(5) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance precluded partners from sharing in a trustee's remuneration.
  2. Whether there was an error of law on the face of the arbitration award.
  3. Whether the division of the trustee's remuneration between partners breached section 81(5) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance.
  4. Whether the first partner committed a breach of the partnership agreement by accepting the trusteeship for his private benefit.

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Remittal of Award — Error of Law on Face of Award
An arbitration award may be remitted to the arbitrator only where there is an error of law on the face of the award, meaning a legal proposition stated in the award or in documents incorporated thereto which, when examined, is demonstrably erroneous.
Arbitration — Finality of Award — Arbitrator as Judge of Law and Fact
Where parties voluntarily submit their disputes to arbitration, the arbitrator is constituted the sole and final judge of all questions both of law and fact, and the exception for error of law on the face of the award should not be extended.
Arbitration — Error of Law — Inference Distinguished from Statement
It does not constitute an error of law on the face of the award that it may be inferred from the award that the arbitrator took a mistaken view of the law; the arbitrator must have tied himself down to some special legal proposition which is then shown to be unsound.
Arbitration — Award — Reference to Law Without Statement of Proposition
Where an arbitrator refers to the law but deliberately refrains from attempting to state it or tie himself down to a specific legal proposition, there is no error of law on the face of the award.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 25) s.81(5)
  • Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 5) s.14
  • Bankruptcy Act, 1914 s.82(5)
  • Arbitration Act, 1889 s.10
  • Indian Contract Act

Cases cited (5)

  • Hodgkinson v Fernie (1857) 3 C.B. (N.S.) 189
  • Champsey Bhara & Co v Jivraj Baloo Spinning & Weaving Co (47 I.L.R. (Bombay) 578)
  • Ujagar Singh v H. A. Murray (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1949) 17 E.A.C.A. 8
  • Hari Singh v General Workshop (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1950) 18 E.A.C.A. 4
  • Sohan Lal v East African Builders Merchants (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1950) 18 E.A.C.A. 50

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Ainslie v Morrison (Civil Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 1951) [1951] EACA 96 (1 January 1951)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.