Wakilii

Dott Services Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (CAD ARB 31 of 2017)

Tribunal · [2017] UGCADER 5 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for compulsory appointment of adjudicator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Application for compulsory appointment of adjudicator granted

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 under the contract's dispute resolution clauses, an adjudicator could be appointed under Clause 25.2 for any contractual dispute without requiring proof of a prior project manager's decision. The respondent's insistence on proof of a project manager's decision under Clause 24.1 usurped the adjudicator's jurisdiction. The tribunal granted the application for appointment of an adjudicator and awarded costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Application for compulsory appointment of adjudicator granted

Facts

Dott Services Ltd entered into a contract with Uganda National Roads Authority on 2 February 2015 for rehabilitation of the Nakalama-Tirinyi-Mbale Road. On 9 May 2017, UNRA terminated the contract for convenience. On 10 May 2017, the applicant requested the President of the Uganda Institute of Professional Engineers to propose three nominations for an adjudicator. On 13 April 2017, UNRA rejected the request, arguing that the applicant had not identified any specific project manager's decision to be adjudicated and that the request was speculative. Following UNRA's refusal to concede to appointment of an adjudicator, the applicant on 10 May 2017 requested appointment of an arbitrator. The applicant then brought this application for compulsory appointment under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent was right to maintain that the project manager's decision was a precondition to the adjudication reference.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • An adjudicator shall be appointed under Section 11(4)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  • The appointed adjudicator shall be listed in the consequential ruling.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Adjudication — Preconditions for Reference — Project Manager's Decision
Under a contract providing for adjudication of disputes, where Clause 24.1 requires reference to adjudication based on the contractor's belief that a project manager's decision was wrongly taken, and Clause 25.2 provides for appointment of an adjudicator for any dispute under the contract, the reference to adjudication need only be premised on the contractor's belief and does not require proof to the other party of the project manager's decision.
Arbitration & ADR — Adjudication — Scope of Adjudicator's Jurisdiction — Contractual Disputes
The term 'any adjudicator appointed under the contract' in dispute resolution clauses is wider than disputes limited to project manager's decisions under Clause 24.1, and encompasses all contractual disputes arising from the contract agreement.
Contract Law — Construction Contracts — Dispute Resolution Clauses — Special Conditions and General Conditions
Special Conditions of Contract supplement General Conditions of Contract, and in case of conflict, the Special Conditions prevail over the General Conditions.
Arbitration & ADR — Adjudication — Appointment of Adjudicator — Party Autonomy
The power to appoint an adjudicator lies with the parties themselves, and a party's insistence on proof of a project manager's decision as a precondition to adjudication amounts to usurpation of the adjudicator's jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dott Services Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (CAD ARB 31 of 2017) [2017] UGCADER 5 (7 June 2017)
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.