Wakilii

Contact Graphics Ltd v Vivilan Metal Project Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 939 of 2004)

High Court · [2008] UGCOMMC 82 · 2008 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by chamber summons to set aside arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 the arbitral award. The court held that the applicant waived the 30-day time limit by failing to object during arbitration proceedings. No evidence of partiality, material mistakes, or conflict with public policy was established. The arbitrator properly evaluated the evidence, and his findings on contract performance, frustration, and the counterclaim were not manifestly erroneous. An application to set aside an arbitral award is not an appeal; the court's role is supervisory, limited to examining whether errors are apparent on the face of the record.

Outcome

Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Contact Graphics Limited (applicant) contracted Vivilan Metal Project Limited (respondent) to fabricate and erect advertising billboards in early 2003 for a total contract price of UGX 64,150,000. UGX 42,100,000 was paid, leaving a balance of UGX 22,050,000 outstanding. The respondent instituted High Court Civil Suit No. 423 of 2004 claiming the balance, general damages for breach of contract, interest and costs. The applicant defended on grounds that the respondent breached the contract, which was frustrated when billboards collapsed after erection and the MTN contract was terminated. The dispute was referred to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the contract dated 1 April 2003. The arbitrator made his award on 24 July 2006 in favour of the respondent. The applicant then applied to set aside the award.

Issues

  1. Whether the arbitrator failed to comply with the stipulated time within which he should have completed the award.
  2. Whether the arbitrator expressed evident partiality in the conduct of the arbitral proceedings.
  3. Whether the award is in conflict with public policy in Uganda and is bad on the face of it.
  4. Whether the award bears admitted material mistakes.
  5. Whether the arbitrator exhibited a lack of consideration for evidence on record and thereby made findings of fact which were not justified by the documents before him.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Setting Aside Awards — Time Limits — Waiver
Where an arbitration agreement provides a time limit for completion of arbitration and a party participates in proceedings without objecting to non-compliance with the time limit, that party is deemed under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to have waived the right to object to the time limit.
Arbitration — Setting Aside Awards — Nature of Proceedings — Distinction from Appeals
An application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not an appeal. You cannot appeal the decision of an arbitrator. Arbitration is an alternative dispute mechanism chosen by the parties themselves by agreement, and the court's role is supervisory, not substitutionary.
Arbitration — Setting Aside Awards — Grounds — Limited Scope
An arbitral award can only be set aside for the nine reasons set out in Section 34(2)(a) and (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The policy of the law is that the award of the arbitrator is ordinarily final and conclusive, and the court should approach the award with a desire to support it if it is reasonable rather than destroy it.
Arbitration — Setting Aside Awards — Partiality and Misconduct — Standard of Proof
Not all kinds of misconduct give rise to setting aside an arbitral award. It is only gross misconduct that gives power to the court to set aside an award. Mere mistake by the arbitrator does not amount to misconduct. The onus of proving impartiality lies on the party who has alleged it.
Arbitration — Setting Aside Awards — Error on Face of Record
An error on the face of the record must be an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. The arbitrator is the judge of law and fact, and if he makes a mistake in determining the matters referred to him, the award will be good notwithstanding the mistake if such mistake does not appear on the face of the record.
Pleadings — Amended Pleadings — Failure to Reply
Under Order 6 rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a party does not plead to an amended pleading, that party shall be deemed to rely on his or her original pleading in answer to that amendment.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Campbell V Irwin (1913) 25 CWN 853: 5CWN 957
  • Kilembe Mines Ltd v B. M. Steel Limited (MC 02 of 2005)
  • Total (U) Limited v Buramba General Agencies (Arb Cause No. 03 of 1998)
  • National Social Security Fund and Another v Alcon and Another (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2008)
  • N. Chellapan V Secy, Kerala Estate Electricity Board (1975) 1 SCC 289 (AIR 1975 SC 230)
  • Kanyebwera v Tumwebaze [2005] 2 EA 86

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Contact Graphics Ltd v Vivilan Metal Project Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 939 of 2004) [2008] UGCommC 82 (13 February 2008)
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.