COMET CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD. vs. TEMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [1965]DLHC1792

Date	1965-02-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1792

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

A. W. ACQUAAH FOR THE APPLICANT.

MRS. HOTOBA-DURING FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLHC1792
																																						<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" >COMET CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;TEMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 66<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
26 FEBRUARY 1965.<o:p></o:p>

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

A. W. ACQUAAH FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. HOTOBA-DURING 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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>The
arbitrator by his award dated 14 October 1964 dismissed the claim of the
company and partly allowed the claim by the corporation. On 18 January 1965 the
Solicitor-General acting for the corporation filed a motion for the enforcement
of the award. On 2 February 1965, the company by its solicitor also filed a
motion on notice asking for an extension of time and an order setting aside the
award under section 26 of the Arbitration Act, 1962,1 and Order 64, r. 13 of
the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954.2 The application for
extension of time was not opposed, and in view of the facts deposed to in the
affidavit in support of the application, I exercised my discretion and extended
the time. At the same time I stayed further proceedings on the motion to
enforce the award until the hearing and determination of the application to set
aside.<o:p></o:p>The
grounds relied on by the company in their application are that the arbitrator
was guilty of misconduct in that:<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">(a) He
failed to determine all the issues before him;<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">(b) The
fees he charged were unreasonable and excessive;<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">(c) He
changed his award after making it;<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">(d) He
misconducted the proceedings;<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">(e) The
award is erroneous.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Under
these grounds learned counsel for the company (which I shall hereafter refer to
as the contractor) argued that there are several errors of law appearing on the
fact of the award. He submitted that the arbitrator failed to decide all the
issues that were before him, that he changed his award after making it, that
the arbitrator was wrong in law in holding that the contractor waived his right
to the site on the stipulated date and several other points. I am of the view
that one of these is so fundamental that a ruling on it will dispose of the
application, i.e. whether the employer was entitled in law to terminate the
contract at all.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
proceeding to consider this point, I think it will help to give a clearer
picture of this matter if I set out the undisputed facts of this case. I do not
think it is necessary to cite any authority for the proposition that the
findings of fact by the arbitrator are final. There will be no merit at all in
arbitrations unless awards are to be treated, if at all possible, as final on
the facts. The arbitrator sets out the undisputed facts clearly in his award as
follows:<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">“By an
agreement dated 1 June 1961, the employer employed the contractor to build 17
BN type houses ( a BN type house comprises two dwellings) together with
external services on site 21, Community No. 1, Tema at the cost of £G114,462
10s.0d. which amount included £G17,400 for contingent and provisional sums. The
work to be carried out upon and subject to the conditions annexed to the
agreement which is exhibit D. By condition 18 of the agreement the contractor was
to be given possession of the site on 5 June 1961 and the works were to be
completed by the contractor on 4 January 1962. By a variation order dated 28
June 1961, exhibit U, the type of building was varied from BN type </main>