Wakilii

Hoima Municipal Council v Plinth Technical Works Limited (CAD ARB NO. 63 OF 2017; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 972 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGCOMMC 87 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction arising from arbitral proceedings
Decision
Arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction set aside; matter referred back to adjudication

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 set aside the arbitrator's decision finding he lacked jurisdiction. The contract required disputes to first be referred to an adjudicator under Clause 24, with arbitration available only after adjudication within 28 days of the adjudicator's decision. The respondent prematurely filed for arbitration without exhausting or withdrawing from adjudication. The matter was referred back to adjudication with directions for a new adjudicator and strict timelines.

Outcome

Arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction set aside; matter referred back to adjudication

Facts

Hoima Municipal Council and Plinth Technical Works Limited entered into a roads renovation contract dated 13 December 2014 for UGX 10,434,035,711 with one-year duration. Following mutual disengagement, the parties disagreed on the final account. The respondent claimed UGX 3,069,567,455 outstanding; the Project Manager initially assessed UGX 444,602,351, later revised to UGX 948,009,898. The respondent declared a dispute and referred it to Uganda Institution of Professional Engineers for adjudication on 16 August 2017. An adjudicator, Eng. Daka Michael, was appointed and accepted by both parties, but he never presided. On 17 October 2017, before the adjudication concluded, the respondent filed for arbitration. Victor Odongo was appointed arbitrator on 3 April 2018. The applicant raised a preliminary objection on jurisdiction, which the arbitrator dismissed on 9 November 2018. The applicant then sought to set aside that decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear the dispute when the adjudication process had not been exhausted.
  2. Whether the respondent prematurely referred the matter to arbitration before finalizing the contractually mandated adjudication process.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Decision of the Arbitrator dated 9 November 2018 set aside.
  • Arbitrator found to have exceeded jurisdiction and exercised powers reserved for the adjudicator.
  • Matter referred back to adjudication.
  • Preferably a new adjudicator be appointed with strict timelines.
  • Each party to bear its own costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Jurisdiction — Premature Arbitration Before Exhaustion of Contractual Adjudication
An arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to hear a dispute where the contract requires disputes to first be referred to an adjudicator and the adjudication process has not been exhausted or withdrawn from before proceeding to arbitration.
Contract Law — Dispute Resolution Clauses — Sequential Dispute Resolution Procedures
Where parties have agreed to a sequential dispute resolution procedure requiring adjudication before arbitration, the parties are bound by those terms and must exhaust each stage before proceeding to the next unless the contract provides otherwise.
Arbitration & ADR — Adjudication — 28-Day Period for Referral to Arbitration
Under a contract providing that either party may refer an adjudicator's decision to arbitration within 28 days, and that if neither party does so the adjudicator's decision becomes final and binding, arbitration may only be commenced after an adjudicator has given a decision, not before adjudication is completed.
Arbitration & ADR — Arbitrator's Jurisdiction — Exceeding Jurisdiction
An arbitrator exceeds jurisdiction and exercises powers reserved for another dispute resolution body when hearing a matter before the contractually mandated prior dispute resolution stage has been completed.

Legislation cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hoima Municipal Council v Plinth Technical Works Limited (CAD ARB NO. 63 OF 2017; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 972 2018) [2018] UGCommC 87 (28 August 2018)
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.