Wakilii

Central Plumbing Works (Uganda) Ltd and Sung Il Co. Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Application 179 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 218 · 2026 Application Granted — Suit Struck Out and Referred to Arbitration AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of civil suit and referral to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Civil suit struck out and dispute referred to arbitration

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 held that where parties executed a construction contract containing a valid arbitration clause, disputes arising from a product guarantee issued pursuant to that contract fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The guarantee was issued within the contractual framework and concerned works undertaken under the main contract. The court found that the dispute was sufficiently connected with the parties' contractual relationship and fell within the arbitration clause. The civil suit was struck out and the matter referred to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Outcome

Civil suit struck out and dispute referred to arbitration

Facts

The parties executed a construction contract on 12 August 2013 for an extra water reservoir at Entebbe International Airport. The contract contained an arbitration clause in clause SCC 25.4.1. Pursuant to the contract, the second applicant issued a 50-year guarantee dated 16 October 2013 for the water tanks supplied. The respondent subsequently instituted civil suit claiming the applicants supplied defective water tanks and seeking recovery of UGX 646,704,604 plus damages. The parties had previously participated in arbitration proceedings, but the resulting award was set aside by the High Court on 25 January 2024 on grounds that the arbitral tribunal had not been properly constituted. The applicants then applied for the civil suit to be stayed and referred to arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clause. The respondent opposed, contending the claim was founded on the guarantee which was a separate instrument containing no arbitration clause.

Issues

  1. Whether High Court Civil Suit No. HCT-00-CV-CS-0057-2023 concerns a dispute falling within the parties' arbitration agreement and should therefore be referred to arbitration under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Cap. 5), the dispute between the parties arising out of, or in connection with, the contract dated 12 August 2013 for the construction of an extra water reservoir at Entebbe International Airport is referred to arbitration.
  • High Court Civil Suit No. HCT-00-CV-CS-0057-2023 is hereby struck out.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Scope of Arbitration Agreement — Disputes Arising from Related Instruments
Where a product guarantee is issued pursuant to, and in performance of, obligations arising under a principal construction contract containing an arbitration clause, disputes concerning breach of that guarantee fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement as being sufficiently connected with the parties' contractual relationship.
Arbitration & ADR — Section 5 Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Mandatory Referral to Arbitration
The obligation imposed by section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to refer disputes to arbitration is mandatory but not absolute. The court may decline referral only where it is satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, or that there is no dispute between the parties concerning matters agreed to be referred to arbitration. The burden lies on the party resisting reference to demonstrate the existence of any such exception.
Arbitration & ADR — Stay of Proceedings versus Striking Out — Effect of Referral to Arbitration
Once a dispute is referred to arbitration pursuant to section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the proper course is to strike out the civil suit rather than merely stay it, as the continued pendency of the suit before the High Court serves no useful purpose after referral to arbitration.
Arbitration & ADR — Court Intervention — Limited Jurisdiction in Arbitration Matters
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a restrictive statute intended to limit court intervention in matters governed by arbitration. Section 9 of the Act bars courts from intervening except as expressly provided by the Act, and where parties have agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration, the court must respect that contractual choice.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Central Plumbing Works (Uganda) Ltd and Sung Il Co. Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Application 179 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 218 (13 July 2026)
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.