Uganda Case Law

Excel Construction Ltd v GCC Services (U) Ltd

Excel Construction Ltd v GCC Services (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 156 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 250 (6 September 2017)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 156 of 2017

The court found that it has substantive power and discretion under Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Rule 12 of the Arbitration Rules to order security for performance of an arbitral award where an application to set aside the award is pending. The absence of assets within the jurisdiction, especially for a Ugandan-registered company, and the lack of prejudice to the respondent if security is ordered, are sufficient grounds to grant the application. The court distinguished authorities cited by the respondent and found that the risk of non-recovery by the applicant just…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Awards
• Security For Performance
• Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards
• Setting Aside Awards

National Social Security Fund and Another v Alcon International Limited

National Social Security Fund and Another v Alcon International Limited (Civil Appeal No 15 of 2009) [2013] UGSC 29 (8 February 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No 15 of 2009

Judge

Odoki, CJ, Tsekooko, JSC, Katureebe, JSC, Kitumba, JSC, Kisaakye, JSC

The Supreme Court held that Alcon International Ltd (Uganda) had no cause of action against the appellants because the contract and co-financing agreement were signed by Alcon International Ltd (Kenya), and no valid assignment to Alcon Uganda was pleaded or proved. Clause 17 of the contract expressly prohibited assignment without NSSF's consent, which was neither sought nor obtained. The Court found that the arbitral award was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of material facts, amounting to illegality and contrary to public policy. The trial judge erred in referring th…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Awards
• Contract Assignment
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Public Policy
• Privity Of Contract

BM Steel Ltd v Kilembe Mines Ltd Ruling 3 (HCT-CC-00-MA 579 of 2005)

BM Steel Ltd v Kilembe Mines Ltd Ruling 3 (HCT-CC-00-MA 579 of 2005) [2005] UGCommC 48 (31 August 2005)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-CC-00-MA 579 of 2005

The court held that an order setting aside an arbitral award is not appealable as of right or with leave of court under the Civil Procedure Act or its Rules. Section 68 provides a general right of appeal, but Section 77 specifically restricts appeals to certain orders, which do not include orders setting aside arbitral awards. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act governs such orders, and neither the Civil Procedure Act nor its Rules provide for appeals from them. Precedent from B. D. Bilmoria & Another v T. D. Bilmoria and Rene Dol v The Official Receiver of Uganda confirms that appeals are o…

Source excerpt

• Appeals From Orders
• Arbitration Awards
• Leave To Appeal
• Civil Procedure Act Interpretation

Ruling in Kilembe Mines Ltd v BM Steel Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MC 2 of 2005)

Ruling in Kilembe Mines Ltd v BM Steel Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MC 2 of 2005) [2005] UGCommC 40 (13 July 2005)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-MC 2 of 2005

The court found that the arbitrator exhibited evident partiality by failing to scrutinize the respondent's claim for special damages with the same rigor applied to the applicant's counterclaim. The arbitrator accepted the respondent's evidence without adequate questioning or assessment, while subjecting the applicant's claims to detailed analysis and ultimately rejecting them for lack of proof. Additionally, the arbitrator unjustifiably refused to allow the applicant to call key witnesses, including an auditor and an electrical engineer, thereby preventing the applicant from fully presenting…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Awards
• Setting Aside Award
• Evident Partiality
• Presentation Of Case
• Damages Assessment

Uganda National Examinations Board v Mparo General Contractors Limited

Uganda National Examinations Board v Mparo General Contractors Limited (Civil Application 19 of 2004) [2004] UGSC 51 (30 November 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application 19 of 2004

Judge

Odoki, CJ, Oder, JSC, Tsekooko, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Mulenga, JSC

The Supreme Court struck out an application for stay of execution, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the Court of Appeal had only struck out a notice of appeal.

• Arbitration Awards
• Stay Of Execution
• Appellate Jurisdiction
• Notice Of Appeal
• Preliminary Objection
• Stay-of-execution

Uganda National Examinations Board v Mparo General Contractors Limited

Uganda National Examinations Board v Mparo General Contractors Limited (Civil Application No. 31 of 2003) [2003] UGCA 41 (4 April 2003)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application No. 31 of 2003

Judge

Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal of Uganda granted an interim stay of execution in an arbitration-related matter, finding the applicant had acted promptly and that no injustice would result.

• Stay Of Execution
• Interim Orders
• Arbitration Awards
• Stay-of-execution
• Interim-orders
• Arbitration-awards

Sekitoleko v Gapco (U) Limited

Sekitoleko v Gapco (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 202 of 2001) [2002] UGCommC 32 (18 February 2002)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 202 of 2001

Judge

Ogoola James, j

The High Court partially allowed an application to remit an arbitral award, requiring reconsideration of the specific refund amounts while upholding most of the award.

• Arbitration Awards
• Remission Of Award
• Ultra Vires Arbitrator
• Unjust Enrichment
• Illegality Of Contracts
• Arbitration

Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited v Kanabolic Group of Companies Limited

Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited v Kanabolic Group of Companies Limited (Civil Appeal 57 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 29 (15 August 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 57 of 1995

Judge

Odoki, JSC, Oder, JSC, Tsekooko, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the application to set aside the arbitrator's award was barred by res judicata because the issues raised were substantially the same as those in the previous application, which had been heard and determined between the same parties. The court further held that the issue of illegality, specifically the arbitrator's extension of time to make the award, should have been raised in the earlier application. Since the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act and its Schedule impliedly conferred power on the arbitrator to extend time, there was no illegality in the arbit…

Source excerpt

• Res Judicata
• Arbitration Awards
• Illegality In Arbitration
• Extension Of Time
• Court Jurisdiction

Lal v East African Builders Merchants

Lal v East African Builders Merchants (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1950) [1951] EACA 50 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1950

Judge

Bourke J, Lockhart-Smith, Ag. VP, Nihill P

The Court of Appeal held that there was no error of law apparent on the face of the arbitral award. The arbitrators did not state any legal proposition, nor did they misapply any legal principle in the award. The findings were factual, and the award did not expressly state that the contract was an entire one for a lump sum, nor did it state that the appellant was entitled to payment contrary to law. The court emphasized that an error of law must be apparent from the award itself or a document incorporated into it, not inferred by the judge from the facts or silence of the arbitrators. The lea…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Awards
• Errors Of Law On Face Of Award
• Remittal Of Award
• Limitation Periods
• Judicial Review Of Arbitration
• Costs Orders

Ainslie v Morrison

Ainslie v Morrison (Civil Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 1951) [1951] EACA 96 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 1951

Judge

Lockhart-Smith, Ag. VP, Sinclair, Ag. CJ. (Tanganyika), Worley, P

The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator's award did not state any legal proposition or tie itself to any specific legal rule that could be examined for error. The arbitrator merely referred to the law and deliberately refrained from stating a legal proposition. The reasoning was based on findings of fact regarding the understanding between the partners and the conduct of the first partner. Since there was no error of law on the face of the award, the court declined to interfere with the arbitrator's decision. The appeals were dismissed, and the award was allowed to stand. The court reaff…

Source excerpt

• Partnership Disputes
• Arbitration Awards
• Remuneration Sharing
• Bankruptcy Trustee
• Error Of Law
• Firm Profit Sharing