[1928] EACA 20

[1928] EACA 20

The court held that the arbitration agreement expressly required the appointment of an umpire before the arbitrators entered upon the business of reference, making this a condition precedent. Since the arbitrators had not appointed an umpire as required, the court found that it had no power to enlarge the time for making an award under the Arbitration Ordinance. Even if such power existed, the court would not exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, especially as the arbitrators themselves had indicated no desire to continue the proceedings. The court emphasized that statutory provisions regarding arbitration do not override express terms agreed upon by the parties in their...

Citation
[1928] EACA 20
Parties
Applicant: Narain Singh; Respondent: Assa Nand; Respondent: Another (unnamed)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1928
Case Number
C.C. 40/1928.
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Enlargement of Time Under Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome
application refused with costs to the second respondent against the applicant
Judges
Sheridan, J
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreements, Appointment of Umpire, Condition Precedent, Court Discretion, Enlargement of Time
Source Language
English
Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure Arbitration Agreements Appointment of Umpire Condition Precedent Court Discretion Enlargement of Time

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narain Singh

Applicant

Assa Nand

Respondent

Another (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Enlargement of Time Under Arbitration Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of an umpire prior to arbitrators entering upon the business of reference is a condition precedent under the arbitration agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the court has discretion to enlarge the time for making an award when the condition precedent has not been fulfilled.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitration agreement expressly required the appointment of an umpire before the arbitrators entered upon the business of reference, making this a condition precedent. Since the arbitrators had not appointed an umpire as required, the court found that it had no power to enlarge the time for making an award under the Arbitration Ordinance. Even if such power existed, the court would not exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, especially as the arbitrators themselves had indicated no desire to continue the proceedings. The court emphasized that statutory provisions regarding arbitration do not override express terms agreed upon by the parties in their...

Court Disposition

application refused with costs to the second respondent against the applicant

Orders

  • The application for enlargement of time is refused.
  • Costs awarded to the second respondent against the applicant.