Wakilii

Patel v Singh and Co. (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 378 · 1950 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya decision dismissing application for order compelling arbitrator to produce copy of arbitration proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; arbitrator remains functus officio

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 once an arbitrator has published and filed his award, the Court has no jurisdiction over the arbitrator except on an application to set aside or remit the award. An ad hoc application for an order compelling the arbitrator to supply copies of the arbitration proceedings or file them in Court is misconceived and not maintainable. The position would be different if the application were ancillary to a pending application to set aside or remit the award. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; arbitrator remains functus officio

Facts

The appellant and first respondents entered into an arbitration agreement appointing the second respondent as arbitrator. The arbitrator published his award on 29 July 1954 and filed it in the Supreme Court on 16 September 1954. The appellant's advocates requested a copy of the arbitration proceedings on 20 September 1954. The arbitrator refused on the ground that he was functus officio and that it was contrary to established principle to allow an award to be reopened for the purpose of discussing the evidence. The first respondents did not consent to disclosure. The appellant then applied to the Supreme Court for an order compelling the arbitrator to supply or file the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the application on 21 January 1955 on the ground that the Court will not look at extraneous documents not forming part of the award to determine whether there is error on the face of the award. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to order an arbitrator who had published and filed his award to supply a copy of the arbitration proceedings to a party.
  2. Whether the Court can compel an arbitrator to produce his notes and records of proceedings after he has become functus officio.
  3. Whether an ad hoc application for production of arbitration records is maintainable absent a pending application to set aside or remit the award.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to both first and second respondents.
  • Second respondent (arbitrator) to be treated on taxation as if he were a trustee appearing only to submit to the Court's order.
  • Second respondent not to be allowed a getting-up fee; fee for instructions assessed at Sh. 100.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Functus Officio — Jurisdiction of Court Over Arbitrator After Award Published and Filed
Once an arbitrator has published and filed his award, the Court has no jurisdiction in the arbitration or over the arbitrator except on an application to set aside or remit the award.
Arbitration — Production of Arbitration Records — Ad Hoc Application
An ad hoc application for an order compelling an arbitrator to supply copies of arbitration proceedings or file them in Court is misconceived where there is no pending application to set aside or remit the award.
Arbitration — Production of Records — Ancillary to Application to Set Aside Award
Where an application for production of arbitration records is ancillary to a pending application to set aside or remit an award, the Court has jurisdiction to order production through the ordinary process of discovery if the documents are relevant to specific allegations of misconduct.
Evidence — Arbitration — Admissibility of Extraneous Evidence on Application to Set Aside Award
Where an application to set aside an award is based on error on the face of the award, the Court will look only at documents accompanying and forming part of the award. Where the application is based on misconduct, extraneous evidence is admissible to prove such misconduct and the arbitrator may be called as a witness.
Evidence — Arbitrator's Notes — Compellability of Production
The Court cannot compel an arbitrator to produce his notes, including his notes of the evidence. However, if the arbitrator is called as a witness and uses his notes to refresh his memory, the ordinary rules of evidence apply to enable the adverse party to make use of the notes as permitted by law.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Kenya Arbitration Ordinance s.9(2)
  • Indian Evidence Act s.161

Cases cited (5)

  • Holgate v Killick (1861) 31 L.J. Ex. 7
  • Doe v Preston (1846) 3 D. & L. 768
  • Scougull v Campbell (1819) 1 Chit. 283
  • Padley v Lincoln Water Works Co. (19 L.J. Ch. 436)
  • Nursing v Nufjer (1890) 17 Cal. 832

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Patel v Singh and Co. (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1955) [1950] EACA 378 (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.