Wakilii

Gapco (U) Ltd v Crane Management Services Ltd (CAD ARB 15 of 2012)

Tribunal · [2012] UGCADER 121 · 2012 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
Decision
Arbitrator compulsorily appointed; matter to proceed to arbitration

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 where a party to an arbitration agreement fails to respond to a nomination of an arbitrator for 82 days, CADER has jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to compulsorily appoint an arbitrator. The respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply and reliance on inadmissible bar submissions demonstrated a lethargic approach inconsistent with the duty to cooperate in forming an arbitral tribunal. An arbitrator must be chosen based on skill and neutrality regarding the disputed subject matter, not a party's subjective sense of comfort.

Outcome

Arbitrator compulsorily appointed; matter to proceed to arbitration

Facts

Gapco (U) Ltd and East African General Insurance Company Ltd executed a sub-lease agreement on 20 June 2001, later extended for five years from 19 June 2006. Crane Management Services Ltd succeeded East African General Insurance Company Ltd as lessor. A dispute arose between the parties. The sub-lease contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be determined under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. On 19 January 2012, Gapco invited Crane Management to concur in the appointment of a nominated arbitrator. After 82 days without response, Gapco filed an application on 11 April 2012 for compulsory appointment of an arbitrator. Crane Management sent a letter on 20 April 2012 claiming delay was due to settlement discussions and proposing its own nominee. The application was heard on 23 April 2012.

Issues

  1. Whether CADER had jurisdiction to effect the compulsory appointment of an arbitrator in light of the Respondent's failure to respond to the Applicant's nomination within a reasonable time.

Orders

  • Jackie Nakalembe appointed as arbitrator.
  • In the event Jackie Nakalembe cannot accept the appointment under s.12(1) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the matter shall be referred to Kafuko Ntuyo or Stephen Musisi in sequential order.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Appointment of Arbitrators — Compulsory Appointment — Failure to Respond
Where a party to an arbitration agreement invites the other party to concur in the appointment of a nominated arbitrator and receives no response for 82 days, the arbitration institution has jurisdiction to compulsorily appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Arbitration — Appointment of Arbitrators — Duty to Cooperate
An arbitration clause embodies the agreement of both parties that disputes shall be settled by a tribunal of their own constitution, imposing a duty on both parties to cooperate in formulating the arbitral tribunal.
Arbitration — Appointment of Arbitrators — Criteria for Selection
The key ground for appointing an arbitrator is the skill set they possess regarding the disputed subject matter and their neutrality; a party's subjective sense of comfort with a nominee is not a relevant criterion.
Evidence — Admissibility — Submissions from the Bar
Where a respondent relies on counsel's submissions from the bar rather than filing an affidavit in reply, such submissions are inadmissible and the alleged facts cannot be considered on the record.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act No.7 of 2000 s.12(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • B.M. Steels v Kilembe Mines (CAD ARB 10 of 2004)
  • Heyman v Darwins [1942] All ER 337

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gapco (U) Ltd v Crane Management Services Ltd (CAD ARB 15 of 2012) [2012] UGCADER 121 (24 April 2012)
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.