Judgment No. SC 26/18 5 Civil Appeal No. SC 164/16 1. The court a quo erred in law in effectively coming to the conclusion that it was unlawful for appellant to pay its employees performance-based salaries. 2. Having come to the conclusion that what the respondents were being paid was in accordance with their contracts of employment, the court a quo erred in law in holding as valid an award which entitled them to be paid on a salary scale that was not contractual and which related to different employees. 3. The court a quo erred in failing to make a determination on whether the arbitrator was entitled to stray from the terms of reference in the manner that he did and whether he was at large to afford relief which had not been motivated. From the grounds of appeal, there are essentially two issues for determination and these are: 1. Whether the court a quo erred in holding that it was unlawful for the appellant to pay its employees performance-based bonuses. 2. Whether the court a quo erred by failing to make a determination on whether the arbitrator strayed from his terms of reference. Whether the court a quo erred in holding that it was unlawful for the appellant to pay its employees performance-based bonuses The appellant contends that the court a quo erred in holding that it was unlawful for it to implement a performance-based bonus scheme because there was nothing unlawful about the measures it adopted in putting in place such a scheme as long as the emoluments which the