Wakilii

CPC Freight Services Ltd v Uganda Property Holdings Ltd (CAD ARB 15 of 2011)

Tribunal · [2011] UGCADER 3 · 2011 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for compulsory appointment of arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.11
Decision
Arbitrator appointed to determine dispute between parties

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

Held that CADER has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator where a written arbitration agreement exists and a dispute has arisen, even where the respondent refuses to participate in the arbitration process. Time limits for commencing arbitration relate to the merits and jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, not to CADER's power to appoint. The arbitration clause survives contract termination and creates a mutual obligation to resolve disputes through arbitration. Concurrent High Court proceedings initiated by the respondent do not preclude the applicant from seeking arbitrator appointment.

Outcome

Arbitrator appointed to determine dispute between parties

Facts

The parties executed a Contract for the provision of Management Services for the Management of Inland Car Port in 2009. The contract contained arbitration clauses at Clauses 14.2 and 17.2. On 16 February 2011, the Respondent terminated the contract, alleging the Applicant had failed to remit fees due under the contract. On 15 March 2011, the Applicant issued written notice to commence arbitration proceedings. The Respondent replied on 23 March 2011 acknowledging the right to arbitration but stating failure to pay rent could not be an issue for arbitration. On 8 April 2011, the Respondent refused to proceed to arbitration. The Applicant filed this application on 30 June 2011 seeking compulsory appointment of an arbitrator. The Respondent had also filed suit in the High Court Commercial Division (HCCS No.240 of 2011) after terminating the contract.

Issues

  1. Whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
  2. Whether there is a dispute between the parties sufficient to warrant appointment of an arbitrator.
  3. Whether time limits for commencing arbitration are an essential consideration in the appointment of an arbitrator.
  4. Whether the existence of concurrent High Court proceedings is relevant to determining whether an arbitrator should be appointed.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Solome Luwaga appointed as arbitrator.
  • In the event Solome Luwaga does not take up the appointment, Emeritus retired Principal Judge Herbert Ntabgoba or Dorothy Kiyimba Kisaka appointed as alternative arbitrators in sequential order.
  • Costs of the application to be borne by the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement
To warrant the compulsory appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the applicant need only prove that a written arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
Arbitration & ADR — Arbitration Clause — Survival After Contract Termination
An arbitration clause is a special agreement which survives the termination of the main contract because it sets up a forum where any outstanding issues shall be resolved, and either party can refer outstanding issues to arbitration after termination.
Arbitration & ADR — Existence of Dispute — Prima Facie Test
At the stage of appointing an arbitrator, the test for whether a dispute exists is a prima facie one; it suffices that one party contends it is aggrieved and that the respondent has not settled the claim to its satisfaction, without regard to the merits of the claim.
Arbitration & ADR — Time Limits — Not Essential to Appointment
Time limits for commencing arbitration proceedings are not a crucial element in determining whether to appoint an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as they relate to the merits of the claim and the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, which can be raised before the tribunal under section 16(a) or before the High Court under section 34(1)(v).
Arbitration & ADR — Concurrent Court Proceedings — Effect on Appointment
The existence of concurrent High Court proceedings initiated by the respondent does not preclude CADER from appointing an arbitrator where the applicant in the arbitration application is not the complainant in the court proceedings and seeks to pursue its own separate claim through arbitration.

Legislation cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CPC Freight Services Ltd v Uganda Property Holdings Ltd (CAD ARB 15 of 2011) [2011] UGCADER 3 (10 July 2011)
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.