Wakilii

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Aya Investments Uganda Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application 1104 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 289 · 2023 Application Granted — Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a civil appeal in the Court of Appeal
Decision
Civil Appeal No. 1190 of 2023 struck out with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The applicant sought to strike out the respondent's appeal against a High Court ruling refusing to set aside an arbitral award. The Court held the appeal was filed sixteen days out of time, contrary to Rule 83, and was liable to be struck out under Rule 82. The respondent's informal application from the bar for extension of time was untenable: extension under Rule 5 requires a formal application establishing sufficient cause, which counsel's admitted oversight could not supply. The appeal was struck out with costs. Obiter, the Court added that no right of appeal lies against a section 34 ruling, since sections 9 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act bar court intervention and only section 38 confers a limited right of appeal.

Facts

Between 2007 and 2017 the applicant and respondent executed financial credit and security agreements to finance construction of the Pearl of Africa Hotel in Kampala. Following alleged default, the applicant commenced foreclosure proceedings; the respondent secured a reference of the dispute to arbitration in South Africa. An arbitral award was made in the applicant's favour and registered as a decree of the High Court. The respondent had earlier filed High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 58 of 2021 to set aside the award, which was dismissed with costs on 15 May 2023. The respondent then filed Civil Appeal No. 1190 of 2023 challenging that dismissal, lodging it on 3 October 2023. The applicant applied to strike out the appeal on the ground that no right of appeal lay. At the hearing, the applicant's counsel additionally raised that the appeal was time-barred: the record's registrar's certificate showed the High Court proceedings were availed to the respondent on 17 July 2023, so the appeal fell due by 17 September 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or any other statute confers a right of appeal against a High Court ruling under section 34 granting or refusing to set aside an arbitral award.
  2. Whether Civil Appeal No. 1190 of 2023 was filed out of time and is liable to be struck out.
  3. Whether an informal application from the bar for extension of time may validate an appeal filed out of time.

Orders

  • Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1190 of 2023 is struck out with costs.
  • Costs of this application are granted to the Applicant.
  • The Respondent's informal application for extension of time is dismissed.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time for institution under Rule 83 — Consequence of late filing
An appeal to the Court of Appeal must be instituted within sixty days as required by Rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and an appeal lodged outside that period is liable to be struck out under Rule 82 on the ground that an essential step was not taken within the prescribed time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of time — Rule 5 — Informal application from the bar
A party whose appeal has been filed out of time must apply formally for extension of time under Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, establishing sufficient cause; an informal application made from the bar is not tenable, and counsel's admitted oversight does not amount to sufficient cause.
Arbitration & ADR — Right of appeal — Section 34 ruling setting aside an arbitral award
No right of appeal lies against a High Court ruling under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act granting or refusing to set aside an arbitral award; sections 9 and 34 expressly bar court intervention, and only section 38 confers a right of appeal where the parties have so agreed and the court grants leave.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.82
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.43(1) & (2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.44(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.83(1) & (2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.5
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.2(2)
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.34
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.9
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.38
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.40

Cases cited (4)

  • Senakula Musoke & Another v Nobamba & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 22 of 2019)
  • Lakeside Diary Limited v Midland Emporium Limited and 3 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 858 of 2022)
  • Babcon Uganda Limited v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2016)
  • Muhammed Hamid v Rolco Construction Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2015)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.