Wakilii

International Development Consultants Ltd. v Muyanja & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No.133 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 6 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking prerogative orders to quash proceedings, ruling, and orders of the 1st respondent acting as Executive Director of the 2nd respondent
Decision
Application allowed. Proceedings in CADER Misc. Appn. No. 67 of 2017 quashed. Appointment of 3rd respondent as arbitrator declared null and void. Matter remitted to Governing Council of CADER for proper appointment of arbitrator.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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 held that the Executive Director of CADER (1st respondent) acted unlawfully in personally entertaining and deciding an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under s. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That function is vested exclusively in the Centre as an institution (the 2nd respondent) through its governing council, not in the Executive Director. An order of certiorari issued to quash the proceedings, ruling, and orders in CADER Misc. Appn. No. 67 of 2017. The appointment of the arbitrator was declared null and void. Mandamus issued directing the Governing Council of CADER to appoint arbitrator(s) in the underlying arbitration. The principle delegatus non potest delegare was affirmed — the Executive Director cannot sub-delegate or usurp functions Parliament vested in the Centre's governing body.

Outcome

Application allowed. Proceedings in CADER Misc. Appn. No. 67 of 2017 quashed. Appointment of 3rd respondent as arbitrator declared null and void. Matter remitted to Governing Council of CADER for proper appointment of arbitrator.

Facts

The applicant entered into a consultancy contract with AECOM (RoA) Pty Ltd and Uganda National Roads Authority for road upgrading works. A dispute arose necessitating arbitration. When the parties could not agree on an arbitrator, the applicant applied to CADER (the 2nd respondent) for appointment of an arbitrator under s. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The application (CADER Misc. Appn. No. 67 of 2017) was received by the 1st respondent, the Executive Director of CADER. He fixed the application for hearing, presided over it personally, delivered a ruling, and appointed the 3rd respondent as sole arbitrator. The applicant challenged this decision by way of judicial review, contending that the Executive Director had no jurisdiction to entertain the application — that function was vested exclusively in the Centre as an institution through its governing council under ss. 67, 68, and 69 of the Act.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction to entertain the current application.
  2. Whether or not the application is properly brought against the 3rd respondent.
  3. Whether the ruling and orders of the 1st respondent in CADER Misc. Appn. No. 67 of 2017 are amenable to judicial review.
  4. Whether or not the 1st respondent acted lawfully when he entertained the application to appoint an arbitrator.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • An order of certiorari issued to quash the proceedings, ruling, and orders arising from CADER Misc. Appn. No. 67 of 2017.
  • Declaration that the 1st respondent's appointment of the 3rd respondent as an arbitrator pursuant to the ruling and orders of the 1st respondent in CADER Misc. Appn. No. 67 of 2017 is null and void.
  • Declaration that the 1st respondent cannot exercise the functions of an 'appointing authority' under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to appoint arbitrators and conciliators.
  • An order of mandamus issued directing the Governing Council of the Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution to appoint arbitrator(s) in CAD/ARB/67/2017: International Development Consultants Ltd vs AECOM RoA Ltd.
  • Application allowed with no order as to costs. Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Ouster Clauses — Effect of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which provides that no court shall intervene in matters governed by the Act except as provided, does not oust the constitutional judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 42 of the Constitution. An ouster clause in a statute cannot override a constitutional provision. The Constitution is the supreme law, and the right to apply for judicial review against administrative decisions is constitutionally entrenched and cannot be derogated.
Judicial Review — Scope of Court Intervention in Arbitration
While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act generally limits court intervention in arbitration matters, the court may intervene by way of judicial review where a public body acts ultra vires or in breach of constitutional principles. The court retains supervisory jurisdiction to scrutinise administrative decisions relating to arbitration for illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Private arbitration must be conducted consistently with constitutional principles, and any derogation may be challenged.
Appointment of Arbitrators — Appointing Authority under Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under s. 11 vests exclusively in the 'appointing authority' as defined in s. 2(1)(a) and specified in s. 68 as the Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (CADER). The Executive Director of CADER, acting in his administrative capacity under s. 70, has no power to exercise the judicial or quasi-judicial functions of appointing arbitrators. Those functions are reserved to the Centre as an institution through its governing council.
Delegation of Powers — Delegatus Non Potest Delegare
A person or body to whom Parliament has delegated the exercise of statutory powers cannot in turn delegate the exercise of those powers to another person or body (delegatus non potest delegare). The Executive Director of CADER, whose role under s. 70 is restricted to day-to-day administrative operations, cannot exercise or sub-delegate the Centre's statutory power to appoint arbitrators. Such action is ultra vires and a nullity in law.
Locus Standi — Joinder of Parties Affected by Judicial Review Orders
In judicial review proceedings, a party whose rights or title are likely to be affected by the orders sought should be joined to the application and afforded the right to be heard, even if that party is not ordinarily amenable to judicial review. Modern practice requires that where a court decision will affect another person's rights, that person ought to be joined to avoid condemning them unheard and to enable the court to properly and effectively adjudicate on all matters in issue.
Interpretation of 'Appointing Authority' under Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Section 2(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act defines 'appointing authority' as an institution, body, or person appointed by the Minister. The governing council of CADER, as currently constituted under s. 69, includes members appointed by different authorities (not solely the Minister), and therefore does not strictly conform to the statutory definition. This ambiguity requires legislative clarification. Courts cannot legislate under the guise of interpretation but must apply the law as enacted, leaving reform to Parliament.
Remedies — Discretion to Grant or Refuse Relief
The grant of judicial review remedies remains discretionary. A court may refuse to grant relief even where grounds of review are established, weighing factors including good administration, prejudice to third parties, and the availability of alternative remedies. However, where a decision is ultra vires and a nullity, certiorari will ordinarily issue to quash it. An order of mandamus may issue to compel proper performance of a statutory duty by the correct body.

Legislation cited (35)

Cases cited (12)

  • Fr. Francis Bahikiwe Muntu & 15 Ors v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application No. 643 of 2005)
  • Judicial Review, Law Procedure and Practice, 2nd Ed. Peter Kaluma, Law Africa
  • Sadrudin Kurji & another v Shalimar Limited & 2 Others [2006] eKLR
  • Ntinda New Market Property Owners Co-operative Society Ltd v Uganda Land Commission & 3 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 27 of 2011)
  • Koluo Joseph Andrew & Others v Attorney General and Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] 1 EA 55
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors Cooperative Society Ltd v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0003 of 2011)
  • Suisse Security Bank and Trust Limited v Francis BS 2003 SC 63
  • H.W.R Wade & C.F. Forsyth Administrative Law 10th Edition 2009 pg 260
  • R v Aston University Senate ex parte Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558
  • R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER 652
  • Public Law in East Africa by Ssekaana Musa pg 37 (2009) Law Africa Publishing, Nairobi

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

International Development Consultants Ltd. v Muyanja & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No.133 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 6 (1 March 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.