Wakilii

Aya Bakery (U) Ltd v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 661 of 2010)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 27 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitral award arising from Arbitration Cause No. 2 of 2010
Decision
Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed as time barred

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 High Court dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that it was time barred. The court held that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which requires applications to be made within one month of receiving the award, prevails over Rule 7(1) of the Arbitration Rules, which provides a ninety-day period. The appellants filed more than five months after receiving the award.

Outcome

Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed as time barred

Facts

The respondent obtained an arbitral award on 8 December 2009 for breach of a construction contract, awarding UGX 746,461,881 as special damages, UGX 100,000,000 as general damages, interest, and costs. The award was filed in the High Court for execution on 9 March 2010. The applicants filed an application on 22 November 2010 to set aside the award, alleging the arbitral proceedings were conducted contrary to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. During the arbitration, the original arbitrator Mr Precious Ngabirano was replaced by Hon. Rtd Justice Alfred Karokora. The substitute arbitrator continued the proceedings from where the previous arbitrator had stopped rather than starting afresh, as allegedly required by Section 15(2) of the Act. The applicants contended they were not properly served with notice of the filing of the award. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was time barred under Section 34(3) of the Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to set aside the arbitral award was time barred.
  2. Whether the arbitral proceedings were conducted contrary to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when the substitute arbitrator failed to start the proceedings afresh.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Setting Aside Award — Time Limits — Conflict Between Act and Rules
Where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Rules prescribe different time limits for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award, the provisions of the Act prevail over the Rules. Section 34(3) of the Act, which requires applications to be made within one month of receiving the award, overrides Rule 7(1) of the Rules, which provides a ninety-day period from notice of filing.
Arbitration — Setting Aside Award — Computation of Time — Receipt of Award
For purposes of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the one-month limitation period runs from the date the party received the arbitral award itself, not from the date the award was filed in court. Where a party participates in taxation of costs arising from an award, the court may infer that the party had received the award by the date of that participation.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • ELMANDRY VS SALAM (1956) 23 EACA 313
  • PRASAN ROY V. CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOR (INDIAN SUPREME COURT)
  • SULAIMAN VERSI LTD (in Liquidation) Vrs. I. H. LAKHANI & Co. (EA) LTD [1957] EA 491
  • Roko Construction Ltd v Mohammed Mohammed Hamid (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aya Bakery (U) Ltd v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 661 of 2010) [2013] UGCommC 27 (20 February 2013)
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.