Wakilii

China Railway 18th Bureau (Group) Co. Ltd v Tumo Technical Services Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No. 72 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 393 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed; arbitral award recognized and leave granted for enforcement

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 grounds of public policy violation and evident partiality. The court held that the arbitrator correctly determined that the retention sum claim was not res judicata as it was distinct from the earlier claim for outstanding balances. The arbitrator properly considered both parties' evidence and the applicant failed to establish bias. The award was recognized and leave granted for enforcement.

Outcome

Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed; arbitral award recognized and leave granted for enforcement

Facts

The Applicant contracted with the Government of Uganda for road construction and subcontracted the Respondent for electricity network relocations. Disputes arose during the contract. In a first arbitration (CAD/ARB/29/2018), the Respondent recovered UGX 210,000,000 for outstanding contract sums. Subsequently, in a second arbitration (CAD/ARB/44/2021), the Respondent claimed UGX 81,200,400 as retention money (10% retained on interim payment certificates). The arbitrator awarded this sum. The Applicant then applied to set aside the second award, arguing it violated res judicata and that the arbitrator showed evident partiality by ignoring evidence of payment and making computational errors.

Issues

  1. Whether the Arbitral Award in CAD/ARB/44/2021 should be set aside?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The Arbitral Award in CAD/ARB/44/2021 dated 20th June, 2025 delivered by Mr. David Kaggwa is hereby recognized.
  • Leave is hereby granted for the enforcement of the Arbitral Award in CAD/ARB/44/2021.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Setting Aside Arbitral Awards — Grounds — Public Policy
An arbitral award will be set aside on grounds of inconsistency with public policy only if it is shown that the award was inconsistent with the Constitution or other laws of Uganda, is inimical to the national interest of Uganda, or is contrary to justice and morality. The public policy exception must be interpreted narrowly and is limited to imperative or mandatory rules from which parties cannot derogate.
Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards — Scope of Court Intervention
When a court reviews an arbitration award, it should not concern itself with the merits of the determination. The court cannot review the merits of the tribunal's decision and will not interfere unless the reasons given by the arbitrator are found to be perverse or based on wrong propositions of law. Courts adjudicating upon the validity of an arbitral award do not function as appellate courts but merely decide upon the legality and validity of the award.
Res Judicata — Application in Arbitration — Distinct Claims
The doctrine of res judicata does not bar a subsequent arbitration where the claim is distinct from the earlier claim. A claim for retention money that was not adjudicated in a prior arbitration concerning outstanding balances on interim payment certificates is not res judicata, even where both claims arise from the same contract, if the retention sum was not due at the time of the first arbitration and was not included in the earlier claim.
Evident Partiality — Test and Standard of Proof
Evident partiality may be manifested by actual partiality or bias, an appearance of partiality, or a reasonable impression of partiality. There must be persuasive evidence of partiality rather than mere speculation or possibility. The test is whether the circumstances could properly cause a reasonable well-informed person to have a reasonable apprehension of a biased appraisal or judgment by the arbitrator. The rejection of a party's objection or the arbitrator's adverse findings on evidence do not, without more, constitute evident partiality.
Correction of Arbitral Awards — Computational Errors — Statutory Remedy
Where a party alleges computational errors in an arbitral award, the proper remedy is to request correction under Section 33(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act within fourteen days from the date of receipt of the award. A party cannot raise computational errors as a ground for setting aside an award under Section 34 where it failed to seek correction under Section 33.
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards — Effect of Dismissal of Setting Aside Application
Where the time for making an application to set aside an arbitral award has expired, or that application having been made has been refused, the award shall be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court. Upon dismissal of an application to set aside an award, the court will recognize the award and grant leave for its enforcement.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Kampala International University v Housing Finance Company Limited (Arbitration Causes No. 38 and 46 of 2024)
  • Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Solcon E.A Limited (Arbitration Cause No. 41 of 2024)
  • Bemuga Forwarders Limited v Sany International Development Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 2024)
  • Pearl Marina Estates Limited v Roko Construction Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2023)
  • Kilembe Mines Ltd v B.M. Steel Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 02 of 2005)
  • Smile Communications Uganda Ltd v ATC Uganda Limited & Another (Arbitration Cause No. 04 of 2022)
  • Roko Construction Ltd v Kobusingye Janet (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Parsha International Ltd T/a Champion Bet/Slots v Homebet Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 598 of 2021)
  • Karia & Another v Attorney General & Others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Batamax Ltd Vs State Trading Corporation (Mauritius) (2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

China Railway 18th Bureau (Group) Co. Ltd v Tumo Technical Services Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No. 72 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 393 (23 October 2025)
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.