Wakilii

Patel v Singh and Another (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 209 · 1950 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Kenya's refusal to grant an extension of time for filing an application to set aside an arbitrator's award
Decision
Matter remitted to the Supreme Court to hear the application for extension of time on its merits

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 application for extension of time to file an objection to an arbitrator's award is a proceeding within section 89 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance and a matter of procedure within Order XLVII, rule 4. There is no conflict between rule 7 of the Arbitration Rules and the Civil Procedure Rules. Order XLIX, rule 5 applies to empower the court to extend the eight-week period prescribed by the Arbitration Rules. The appeal was allowed.

Outcome

Matter remitted to the Supreme Court to hear the application for extension of time on its merits

Facts

In 1954 the parties submitted a dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator published his award on 16 September 1954. The appellant requested a copy of the arbitration proceedings to prepare objections to the award, but the arbitrator refused. The appellant applied to the Supreme Court for an order requiring production of the documents; that application was refused. Under rule 7 of the Arbitration Rules, the time for filing objections expired on 11 November 1954. On 10 November 1954 the appellant filed a notice of motion seeking an extension of time, arguing that without the record he could not properly set out his grounds of objection. The Supreme Court refused the extension on 16 December 1954, holding that neither section 95 nor section 97 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance applied and that Order XLIX, rule 5 was confined to time fixed under the Civil Procedure Rules themselves. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court had power to extend the time prescribed by rule 7 of the Rules of Court (Proceedings in Arbitration) for filing an application to set aside an arbitrator's award.
  2. Whether section 89 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance applied to bring in Order XLIX, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether there was a conflict between rule 7 of the Arbitration Rules and the Civil Procedure Rules such that the Arbitration Rules would prevail under Order XLVII, rule 4.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Matter remitted to the Supreme Court for hearing on the merits of the application for extension of time.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Application for Extension as a Proceeding
An application for an extension of time for filing an application to set aside an arbitrator's award is a proceeding within the meaning of section 89 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Application as Matter of Procedure
An application for an extension of time prescribed by rules is a matter of procedure within the meaning of Order XLVII, rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Arbitration & ADR — Extension of Time — No Conflict Between Arbitration Rules and Civil Procedure Rules
There is no conflict between a rule which prescribes a period for doing an act and another rule which in general terms empowers the court to extend the time allowed for taking various steps. The second rule is complementary to the first.
Arbitration & ADR — Extension of Time — Application of Order XLIX Rule 5
Order XLIX, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers the court to enlarge time fixed for doing any act under the Rules, applies to time prescribed by the Arbitration Rules through the operation of section 89 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance.
Arbitration & ADR — Extension of Time — Section 10 of Arbitration Ordinance Not Exhaustive
Section 10 of the Arbitration Ordinance, which expressly empowers the court to enlarge the time for making an award, does not by inference prohibit the court from enlarging time for taking other steps in arbitration proceedings. Section 10 was required as a special provision because until an award is filed the court has no seisin of proceedings.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Kenya Arbitration Ordinance s.10
  • Kenya Arbitration Ordinance s.20
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance s.2
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance s.89
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance s.95
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance s.97
  • Kenya Rules of Court (Proceedings in Arbitration) r.7
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Rules Order XLVII r.4
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Rules Order XLIX r.5
  • Indian Limitation Act
  • Indian Civil Procedure Code s.148
  • Indian Civil Procedure Code s.151

Cases cited (3)

  • In re the Plymouth Breweries Ltd (1918) 1 KB 573
  • In re Oliver and Scott's Arbitration (1889) 43 Ch D 314
  • Bhagat Singh v Ramanlal P Chauhan and Others (Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1954)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Patel v Singh and Another (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1955) [1950] EACA 209 (1 January 1950)
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.