Wakilii

Singh v Nand and Another (Civil Case No. 40 of 1928)

East African Court of Appeal · [1928] EACA 5 · 1928 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enlargement of time under section 10 of the Arbitration Ordinance
Decision
Application for enlargement of time refused

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 it had no power to enlarge time for an arbitration award where the submission deed required appointment of an umpire before arbitrators entered upon the reference and no umpire was appointed. Such appointment constituted a condition precedent. Even if the Court had discretion under section 10 of the Arbitration Ordinance, it would not be exercised favourably where arbitrators had not complied with the mandatory preliminary requirement and had asked parties to settle the matter elsewhere.

Outcome

Application for enlargement of time refused

Facts

On or about 1 November 1927, the applicant and respondents agreed to refer all disputes between them to arbitration by Messrs. Amritsaria Mal Marwaha and Darbarilal. The submission to arbitration contained a provision requiring that if the arbitrators disagreed, the disputed matters would be referred to an umpire whom the arbitrators must appoint in writing before entering upon the business of reference. The arbitrators proceeded with the arbitration and held several sittings but never appointed an umpire as required by the submission. The applicant then applied to the Court under section 10 of the Arbitration Ordinance for an enlargement of time to make an award.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to enlarge the time for making an arbitration award where the arbitrators failed to appoint an umpire as required by the submission deed.
  2. Whether the appointment of an umpire prior to the arbitrators entering upon the business of reference was a condition precedent to the arbitration.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Umpire Appointment — Condition Precedent
Where parties to a submission to arbitration have expressly provided that the appointment of an umpire shall take place prior to the arbitrators entering upon the business of reference, such appointment is a condition precedent to the arbitration proceeding.
Arbitration & ADR — Extension of Time — Discretion
The Court's power to enlarge time for making an arbitration award under section 10 of the Arbitration Ordinance is discretionary and will not be exercised where an umpire cannot be appointed in accordance with the terms of the submission deed.
Statutory Interpretation — Arbitration Ordinance — Party Autonomy
The Arbitration Ordinance does not fetter the right of parties to include in a deed of submission such terms as they wish, and the statutory provisions apply only to introduce certain provisions into a submission unless the contrary is provided by the parties.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 18) s.10
  • Arbitration Ordinance s.6(c)
  • Arbitration Ordinance Schedule I s.2

Cases cited (4)

  • Harding v Watts (1812) 15 East 555
  • Shepherd v Mayor and Corporation of Norwich (1885) 54 Ch D 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 (Civil Case No. 40 of 1928) [1928] EACA 5 (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.