Wakilii

Singh v Nand and Another (C.C. 40-1928.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1928] EACA 20 · 1928 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enlargement of time to make an arbitration award under section 10 of the Arbitration Ordinance
Decision
Application for enlargement of time 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

Where parties to an arbitration submission expressly provide that an umpire must be appointed before arbitrators enter upon the business of reference, such appointment is a condition precedent. The Court refused to enlarge time for making an award where no umpire had been appointed as required by the submission, holding that section 6(c) of the Arbitration Ordinance had no application to override the parties' express contractual terms.

Outcome

Application for enlargement of time dismissed

Facts

On or about 1 November 1927, the applicant and respondents agreed to refer all matters in dispute between them to arbitration by Messrs. Arnritsaria Mel Marwaha and Darbarilal. The submission to arbitration contained a provision that if the arbitrators disagreed, matters should be referred to the umpirage of a person the arbitrators would appoint in writing before they entered on the business of reference. The arbitrators proceeded with the arbitration and held several sittings but never appointed an umpire. The applicant sought an order enlarging the time for making an award under section 10 of the Arbitration Ordinance. The arbitrators had asked the parties to have the matter settled elsewhere.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to enlarge the time for making an arbitration award where the parties' submission required appointment of an umpire before arbitrators entered upon the business of reference, but no umpire was appointed.
  2. Whether the appointment of an umpire in accordance with the terms of the deed of submission was a condition precedent to the arbitrators entering upon the matters referred to them.

Orders

  • Application refused.
  • Costs awarded to the second respondent against the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Appointment of Umpire — Condition Precedent
Where parties to an arbitration submission expressly provide that an umpire must be appointed before arbitrators enter upon the business of reference, such appointment is a condition precedent to the arbitrators' authority to proceed.
Arbitration — Enlargement of Time — Discretion of Court
The Court's power to enlarge time for making an arbitration award under section 10 of the Arbitration Ordinance is discretionary and should not be exercised where an umpire cannot be appointed in accordance with the terms of the submission.
Arbitration Ordinance — Application of Statutory Provisions — Parties' Express Terms
Section 6(c) of the Arbitration Ordinance, which permits arbitrators to appoint an umpire at any time during the period they have power to make an award, does not apply where the parties have expressly restricted the time for appointment of an umpire in their submission to arbitration.
Arbitration — Parties' Freedom of Contract — Statutory Override
The Arbitration Ordinance does not fetter the right of parties to include in their deed of submission such terms as they wish; the Act applies to introduce certain provisions into a submission unless the contrary is provided by the parties.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 18) s.10
  • Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 18) s.6(c)
  • Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 18) Schedule I s.2
  • English Arbitration Act 1889 s.5(c)

Cases cited (4)

  • Harding v Watts (1815) 15 East 555
  • Shepherd v Mayor and Corporation of Norwich (1885) 54 LT (NS) 1050
  • Re Wilson and Son and Eastern Counties Navigation and Transport Co [1892] 1 QB 81
  • In re Williams and Stepney

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Singh v Nand and Another (C.C. 40-1928.) [1928] EACA 20 (1 January 1928)
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.