Christian Counselling Fellowship v Ibinonga Construction & General Merchandise (Miscellaneous Application No. 1269 of 2020)
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 the application to set aside an arbitral award on three preliminary grounds. First, the application was filed beyond the 30-day statutory period prescribed by section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering it incurably defective. Second, the supporting affidavit was deposed by a consultant without express authority from the applicant company, contravening Order 3 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Third, the affidavit was prolix and argumentative, violating Order 19 Rule 3. The court struck out the affidavit and dismissed the application as incompetent.
Outcome
Application dismissed as incompetent without a valid supporting affidavit
Facts
The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral award dated 21 September 2020 made in Arbitration Cause No. 11 of 2020. The application was supported by an affidavit deposed by Paul Byoma Byabogambi, described as one of the applicant's consultants on the project subject to arbitration. The respondent opposed the application, raising preliminary objections that the application was filed out of time, that the deponent lacked express authority from the applicant company, and that the affidavit was argumentative. The arbitral award in question superseded an earlier ruling delivered on 27 August 2020. The application was filed on 30 December 2020.
Issues
- Whether Miscellaneous Application No. 1269 of 2020 was filed out of time contrary to section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
- Whether the affidavit in support was sworn by an unauthorised person without express authority of the applicant company.
- Whether the affidavit in support was argumentative and non-compliant with Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Orders
- The affidavit deposed by Paul Byoma Byabogambi is struck out.
- Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the affidavit in support are struck out as argumentative.
- Miscellaneous Application No. 1269 of 2020 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.12(3)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.34(3)
- Arbitration Rules r.7(1)
- Arbitration Rules r.13
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 3 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 19 r.3
Cases cited (5)
- Mohommed Mohommed Hamid v Raka Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015)
- Makula International Ltd v H.E Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
- Makerere University v St. Mark Education Institute & Others (HCCS No. 378 of 1993)
- Masaka Tea Estates Ltd v Somalia (Kiganjo) Tea Estate Ltd & Another (HCMA 505 of 2004)
- Male H. Mabirizi K Kiwanuka v The Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2018)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.