Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:42 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

21 May 2025

Alternative Dispute Resolution [2025] UGHC 314

Waatunga v Finca Uganda Limited

Waatunga v Finca Uganda Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 314 (21 May 2025)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Civil Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024
Judge: Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere, J

The application to set aside the arbitral award fails because none of the grounds advanced by the applicant meet the statutory requirements under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The allegation of arbitrator bias was unsupported by evidence and did not meet the objective test for impartiality. The claim that the award was against public policy was not substantiated by reference to any specific statutory provision or public policy principle. The delay in delivering the award was permissible under Section 31(1) of the Act, as the arbitrator had discretion to enlarge time, and…

Source excerpt

Setting Aside Arbitral Award
Arbitrator Impartiality
Public Policy In Arbitration
Contractual Interest Rates
Arbitration Timeliness

Read case analysis

17 Jan 2022

Alternative Dispute Resolution [2022] UGCommC 104

Roko Construction Limited v Kobusingye

Roko Construction Limited v Kobusingye (Miscellaneous Cause 22 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 104 (17 January 2022)

Court: Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number: Miscellaneous Cause 22 of 2021
Judge: Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court held that the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Ugandan law are strictly limited to procedural irregularities, evident partiality, violation of public policy, or errors of law apparent on the face of the award. The court found no evidence of actual or apparent bias by the arbitrator, as the site visit and observations were disclosed and both parties had the opportunity to address the evidence. The award was not contrary to public policy, as there was no illegality or result that shocked the conscience of the court. However, the court found that the arbitrator er…