Wakilii

Global Industries v Trident Infratech (Ltd) (MISC.APPLICATION NO.250 OF 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 207 · 2019 Application Dismissed — Proceedings Declared Incompetent AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to lift ban and for interim stay of execution of arbitral award, arising from arbitration proceedings
Decision
All applications declared incompetent and set aside; parties directed to pursue remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; status quo at time of arbitral award restored

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 court held that both parties acted in breach of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The interim order issued by the Deputy Registrar was declared incompetent, null and void, and was set aside. All applications filed in the High Court arising out of the arbitration cause were declared incompetent as they were filed in breach of the Act. Section 9 of the Arbitration Act ousts the general jurisdiction of the High Court except as provided in the Act. Judicial review remedies are not available to challenge arbitral awards. The parties were directed to pursue their remedies in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the status quo prevailing at the time of the award was to be restored.

Outcome

All applications declared incompetent and set aside; parties directed to pursue remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; status quo at time of arbitral award restored

Facts

The parties entered into a tenancy agreement on 1 July 2017 containing an arbitration clause. A dispute arose regarding rent arrears and other matters, and the matter was referred to arbitration under CAD/ARB No.47/2018. On 24 June 2019, the arbitrator made an award in favour of the respondent/landlord for rent arrears of USD 44,240, utility bills, damages of USD 20,000, and ordered the applicant to vacate within two weeks. Dissatisfied with the award, the applicant sought judicial review and filed multiple applications in the High Court seeking stay of execution. The Deputy Registrar issued an interim order that effectively locked both parties out of the premises with padlocks and security guards. The respondent had earlier locked the applicant out of the premises with the help of the District Police Commander without a court warrant. Neither party followed the proper procedures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for enforcement or challenge of the award.

Issues

  1. Whether the interim order issued by the Deputy Registrar should be lifted to allow the applicant access to its business premises.
  2. Whether the applications before the court were competent in light of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  3. Whether judicial review remedies were available to challenge an arbitral award.
  4. Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act in respect of an arbitral award.
  5. Whether the parties properly followed the procedures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for enforcement and challenge of the arbitral award.

Orders

  • Both parties have acted in breach of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4, Laws of Uganda.
  • The Interim Order issued by the Deputy Registrar dated 15th July 2019 is incompetent, null and void, and is hereby set aside.
  • All Applications filed in this Court between the parties and or any other person(s) arising out of Arbitration Cause No. CAD/ARB/47/2018 are declared incompetent as they were filed in breach of the ACA.
  • The parties are directed to pursue their remedies in accordance with Provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act CAP 4.
  • The status quo prevailing at the time of the award should be restored.
  • No order is made as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Judicial Review — Availability of Remedies — Challenge to Arbitral Award
Judicial review is not concerned with the decision in issue per se but with the decision-making process, and is concerned with prerogative orders which are remedies for the control of the exercise of power by those in public offices. Judicial review remedies are not available to challenge an arbitral award as such disputes do not fall under the ambit of judicial review.
Arbitration — Court Jurisdiction — Ouster Clause — Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that except as provided in the Act, no court shall interfere in matters governed by the Act. This provision ousts the general unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court in arbitration matters except as specifically provided for in the Act.
Arbitration — Enforcement of Award — Registration Requirement — Proper Procedure
An arbitral award must be filed or registered with the Registrar of the High Court within the local limits of which the arbitration has been held before it can be enforced. The successful party must have the award certified, registered before the Registry of the High Court within the local limits of the arbitration, and officially served on the party against whom the award was made. Only after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired or such application has been refused shall the award be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of court.
Arbitration — Challenge to Award — Procedure — Time Limits
Any party who objects to an award filed or registered in court may within ninety days after notice of the filing has been served apply for the award to be set aside and lodge objections. An application for setting aside an arbitral award may not be made after one month has elapsed from the date on which the party making the application received the arbitral award.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Deputy Registrar — Arbitral Awards
A Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain an application brought under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act in respect of an arbitral award, as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act specifically provides for the procedure where one is aggrieved and for enforcement of arbitral awards.
Arbitration — Self-Help Enforcement — Illegal Execution
A party to an arbitration may not enforce an arbitral award through self-help or by locking premises with the assistance of police without a court warrant. Such enforcement is illegal and not supported by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which provides specific procedures for enforcement through the High Court.
Contract Law — Arbitration Clause — Freedom of Contract — Binding Nature
Where parties execute a contract containing an arbitration clause agreeing to have their disputes resolved by arbitration, both parties must follow the law and rules governing arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act throughout the dispute resolution process. Parties who submit to arbitration are estopped from avoiding the procedures laid down in the Act.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (6)

  • Excel Construction Ltd v G.CC Services (U) Ltd (Misc. Cause No. 156 of 2017)
  • Dr. Alfred Otieno Odhiambo v Medus Prof S-BV (MA No. 52 of 2019)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 34 of 1995)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Ssemakula Lawrence (MA No. 12 of 2017)
  • Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd (CA No. 87 of 2011)
  • Ignatius Loyola Malungu Vs 199 MC No.059/2016

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Global Industries Vs Trident Infratech (Ltd) (MISC.APPLICATION NO.250 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 207 (6 September 2019)
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.