In Re - Arbitration Between Minter Kier (Africa) Limited; Ralli Brothers Ltd; In Re - Arbitration Ordinance, CAP. 22, Revised Edition (Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 16 of 1951 (Mombasa))
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 held that an arbitrator will not be disqualified merely because of bias inherent in his position as the employer's architect, but will be disqualified where he has demonstrated actual bias beyond that natural bias. Here, the architect arbitrator had purported to adjudicate on the dispute before it was properly referred to him and had informed the parties he had already made his final decision without hearing their case. This showed he had not kept an open mind but had pre-judged the issues, disqualifying him from acting. The matter was referred to a fresh arbitrator.
Outcome
Arbitrator removed and matter referred to fresh arbitrator to be appointed
Facts
The applicants entered into a building contract with the respondents with a clause providing that disputes should be referred to the arbitration of the employer's architect. In November 1950, a dispute arose concerning whether painting of the steel roof was included in the contract sum and whether cracks in the building were due to defective materials and workmanship. Neither party gave formal notice as required by the contract. Correspondence ensued between the applicants and the architect. In letters dated 31 March, 12 May, and 17 May 1951, the architect wrote that he had already given his final decision on the matters in dispute. The applicants applied to remove the arbitrator on two grounds: that he would be a necessary witness in the proceedings, and that he had pre-judged the issues without hearing their case.
Issues
- Whether an architect appointed as arbitrator under a building contract should be removed on the ground that he must be a necessary witness in the arbitration proceedings.
- Whether an architect arbitrator who has expressed strong opinions on matters in dispute before hearing the case should be disqualified from acting as arbitrator on the ground of pre-judgment.
Orders
- The architect arbitrator is disqualified from acting.
- The matters in dispute to be referred to a person to be appointed by the President or Vice-President of the Royal Institute of British Architects as provided in clause 26 of the contract, or to such other person or persons as the parties may by mutual agreement appoint.
- The respondents to bear the costs of the application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Arbitration Ordinance Cap. 22
Cases cited (4)
- Bristol Corporation v John Aird & Co (1913) AC 241
- Eckersley v The Mersey Docks & Harbour Board (1894) 2 QB 667
- Jackson v Barry Railway Co (1893) 1 Ch 238
- Hickman & Co v Roberts (1913) AC 229
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.