Ambitious Construction Company Limited v Uganda National Culture Center (Miscellaneous Application No. 441 of 2020)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The court granted the application to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The applicant was justified in filing the suit because the respondent had ignored attempts to agree on an adjudicator and no appointing authority under CADER was functional at the time. The court appointed Praxis Conflict Centre to assign an arbitrator. Rather than staying the suit, the court closed it as having served its purpose, with costs to abide the arbitration outcome.

Outcome

Dispute referred to arbitration; underlying civil suit closed

Facts

The parties entered into a contract on 7 August 2017 for renovation of the National Theatre premises. The contract contained a dispute resolution clause requiring reference to an adjudicator agreed by the parties, failing which the matter would be referred to arbitration. When a dispute arose over contract performance, the applicant wrote to the respondent to agree on an adjudicator but received no response. The applicant then obtained an adjudicator from the Uganda Institute of Professional Engineers (Engineer Hans Mwesigwa) and communicated the appointment to the respondent, who again ignored it. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 914 of 2019 and this application seeking referral to arbitration and appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the suit was wrongfully filed given the arbitration clause and should be dismissed with costs.

Issues

1. Whether the court should stay the suit and refer the matter to arbitration under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
2. Whether the applicant was justified in filing the suit given the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract.
3. Whether the court should appoint an arbitrator where parties have failed to agree on one.
4. Whether the suit should be stayed or dismissed after referring the matter to arbitration.

Orders

• The dispute between the parties is referred to arbitration.
• High Court Civil Suit No. 914 of 2019 is closed as it has served its purpose.
• The Court appoints the Firm of Praxis Conflict Centre who shall assign a suitable Arbitrator of the dispute between the parties.
• The costs of this application and of the suit shall abide the order of arbitration as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.5
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.9
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.11
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.2(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.47 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (3)

• Yan Jian Uganda Company Ltd v Siwa Builders and Engineers (Miscellaneous Application No. 1147 of 2014)
• Sobetra (U) Ltd v West Nile Electrification Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2010)
• International Development Consultants Ltd v Jimmy Muyanja and others (Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 2018)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Roughton International Ltd and Others v Uganda Investment Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 96 of 2025)
• Trust Builders & Civil Engineers Limited v Kayonza Growers Tea Factory (Civil Suit No. 1143 of 2023)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.