Wakilii

In The Matter Of An Application By Stirling Civil Eingineering Limited (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 0308 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 76 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for registration of a foreign judgment from the United Kingdom High Court recognising an arbitral award from Tanzania
Decision
Application for registration of foreign judgment dismissed on procedural grounds

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court dismissed an application to register a UK court order recognising a Tanzanian arbitral award. The court held that the proper procedure for enforcing a foreign arbitral award from Tanzania, a party to the New York Convention, is under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, not the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The applicant should have sought to register the original Tanzanian arbitral award directly rather than the UK recognition order.

Outcome

Application for registration of foreign judgment dismissed on procedural grounds

Facts

Stirling Civil Engineering Limited obtained an arbitral award in its favour against the Government of Tanzania following arbitration proceedings in Dar es Salaam under European Development Fund Rules. On 19 November 2015, the UK High Court Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court granted permission for registration and enforcement of the arbitral award. The Tanzanian arbitral award had been registered in Tanzania as Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 15 of 2010. Stirling then applied ex parte to the Ugandan High Court to register the UK court order under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, claiming the Tanzanian government had not satisfied the debt and that it had identified Tanzanian government properties in Uganda for enforcement.

Issues

  1. Whether it is just and convenient to register and enforce a UK court order recognising a Tanzanian arbitral award in Uganda.
  2. Whether the application should have been brought under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act rather than the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
  3. Whether the proper procedure is to register the original Tanzanian arbitral award rather than the UK recognition order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards — New York Convention Awards — Proper Procedure
Where Uganda, Tanzania, and the country in which an arbitral award was recognised are all parties to the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, an arbitral award made in Tanzania must be enforced in Uganda under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, not through registration of a third country's recognition order under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
Arbitration Awards — Seat of Arbitration — Determination of Origin
An arbitral award is treated as made at the seat of arbitration regardless of where it was signed, dispatched, or delivered to the parties, and retains its character as an arbitral award from that territory even after recognition by courts in another jurisdiction.
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments — Discretion of Court — Just and Convenient Test
Under section 2 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, the court has discretion to refuse registration of a foreign judgment where it is not just and convenient to enforce it in Uganda, including where the applicant has not shown that the foreign government has refused to satisfy the award in its own territory.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Definition of New York Convention Award
Under section 39(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a New York Convention award means an arbitral award made in the territory of a State (other than Uganda) which is party to the Convention, and such awards must be recognised and enforced pursuant to sections 35, 36, and 42 of that Act.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act Cap.21 s.2
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.39(1)
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.39(2)
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.35
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.36
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.42
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.43

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

In The Matter Of An Application By Stirling Civil Eingineering Limited (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 0308 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 76 (17 January 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.