ADISI vs. CONSTRUCTION FURNITURE (W.A.) CO. LTD. [1962]DLHC1322

Date	1962-01-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1322

OLLENNU J.

C. C. LOKKO FOR THE APPLICANT.

E. N. P. SOWAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1962]DLHC1322
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ADISI <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">CONSTRUCTION FURNITURE (W.A.) CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 30<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 29TH JANUARY, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

C.
C. LOKKO FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

E.
N. P. SOWAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 2.0pt 0in">

OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff and defendant had a dispute over certain contracts
entered into by them. They agreed to submit their said dispute to a sole
arbitrator. The arbitrator having heard the case, published his award on the
3rd October, 1961. The award was against the applicant, the plaintiff in this
case who has applied to the court under Order 64, rule 13, of the Supreme
[High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 to set aside the award on the
following grounds: (1) misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, and (2) error
in law on the face of the award.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The misconduct alleged is that the arbitrator employed a recorder
who was an employee of the defendant-company and by reason of interest the said
recorder did not record the proceedings in questions and answers, but merely
recorded the gist of what she thought the answer was, to the advantage of her
employers. It appears in paragraph 5 of the applicant’s affidavit in support of
the application that at an early stage of the proceedings he drew the attention
of his counsel to the fact he now alleges but the said counsel did nothing
about it, implying that he did not think that anything was happening which was
detrimental to his client’s case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is no exhaustive definition of what amounts to misconduct in
law on the part of an arbitrator—see Halsbury, Law of England (3rd ed.) Vol. 2,
p. 57, para. 126 where the learned authors said, inter alia:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The expression is of wide import, including on the one hand
bribery and corruption and on the other hand a mere mistake as to the scope of
the authority conferred by the agreement of reference or a mere error of law
appearing on the face of the award”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Examples of matters and acts which the courts would regard as
misconduct are given in the aforesaid paragraph 126. Of that long list of acts
of an arbitrator which have been held to be misconduct the one relevant to this
case is the delegation by an arbitrator of any part of his authority to a
stranger or a party. Such a delegation, however, does not apply to a purely
ministerial duty: see Holdsworth v. Wilson.1(1) In that case the arbitrator
delegated his duty to ascertain costs; it was held that the authority delegated
is purely ministerial and so the delegation is not misconduct. See also Simpson
v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue,2(2) and Matthews v. Commissioners of Inland
Revenue.3(3)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It should be observed from all the cases in which an act of an
arbitrator has been held to be misconduct that the conduct is such as might
influence the arbitrator in his decision or make him fail to deal adequately,
fully, or satisfactorily with the dispute, or make him fail to deal with any of
the matters referred to him. Thus if the complaint had been that by employing
the particular recorder the arbitrator disabled himself from dealing with any
of the matters referred to him, it could be said that the said employment
constituted misconduct. Again if there were reasonable grounds to show that the
employment of the particular recorder resulted or even could result in the
arbitrator obtaining some information from the recorder outside the evidence
led before him, e.g., if the arbitrator held private discussions of the record
of proceedings with the recorder in the absence of the parties or any of them,
that act of private discussion, would amount to misconduct. But the mere
employment of the recorder to take the proceedings with nothing more, is in my
opinion, not misconduct to warrant th</main>