Wakilii

Lal v East African Builders Merchants (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 50 · 1951 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya decision on application to remit arbitrator's award
Decision
Appeal allowed and matter remitted to Supreme Court of Kenya for judgment in accordance with Order XLV Rule 16.

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

An error of law apparent on the face of an arbitrator's award requires a legal proposition stated in the award itself or in a document incorporated into it which can be identified as erroneous. A court cannot infer facts from an award and then apply its own legal knowledge to conclude that an error exists. The award contained no erroneous legal proposition and was not required to be remitted.

Outcome

Appeal allowed and matter remitted to Supreme Court of Kenya for judgment in accordance with Order XLV Rule 16.

Facts

The appellant contracted with the respondents to supply labour for carpentry and joinery work at Standard Bank Flats for Sh. 30,000, to be completed by 1 June 1949. The Mowlem Construction Company Limited terminated the sub-contract due to slow progress and defective workmanship. A dispute arose as to the amount due to the appellant. Arbitrators awarded the appellant Sh. 11,555 for work executed before termination, less Sh. 4,354 for defective work to be set off. The respondents applied to the Supreme Court to remit the award, arguing that the arbitrators erred in law by awarding payment under an entire lump sum contract that was not completed. The Supreme Court granted the application to remit. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether an objection to the legality of the arbitrator's award was apparent upon the face of the award.
  2. Whether the court could infer facts from the award and apply its own knowledge of law to find an error of law apparent on the face of the award.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant, including costs of the cross appeal and costs of the motion to remit or set aside the award filed in the Court below.
  • Case remitted back to the Supreme Court of Kenya for judgment in accordance with Order XLV Rule 16.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Arbitrator's Award — Error of Law Apparent on Face of Award — Definition and Scope
An error of law apparent on the face of an arbitrator's award means that the award or a document actually incorporated into it contains a legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which can be identified as erroneous.
Arbitration & ADR — Arbitrator's Award — Court's Power to Remit — Limits on Judicial Intervention
A court cannot infer facts from an arbitrator's award, apply its own knowledge of the law to those inferred facts, and then conclude that an error of law is apparent on the face of the award. The error must be stated in the award itself.
Arbitration & ADR — Arbitrator's Award — Finality — Parties Bound by Arbitrators' Findings
When parties refer a dispute to arbitrators of their own choice and agree to be bound by their decision, they are ordinarily bound by any mistakes of law or fact made by the arbitrators, unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the award.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 45 Rules 14
  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 45 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 45 Rule 16

Cases cited (6)

  • Champsey Bhara & Co Ltd v Jivraj Baloo Spinning and Weaving Co Ltd (L.R. 50 I.A. 324)
  • Saleh Mohamed v Nathoomal Kessamal (L.R. 54 I.A. 427)
  • Civil Appeals 27 of 1949 and 36 of 1950
  • Hodgkinson and Fernie (3 C.B. (N.S.) 189)
  • Meenakshi Mills Ltd v Langely & Co (I.L.R. 58 Bombay 288)
  • Sreelal Mangtulal v Madan (I.L.R. 52 Calcutta 100)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lal v East African Builders Merchants (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1950) [1951] EACA 50 (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.