Wakilii

Joseph Lkito v GAI'CO (U) Ltd (miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 38 · 2000 Award Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to remit an arbitration award to the arbitrators for reconsideration, brought under section 11 of the Arbitration Act (Cap. 55) and Rules 7, 8 and 16 of the Arbitration Rules.
Decision
Arbitration award remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration limited to the specific amounts to be refunded; all other grounds rejected

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

On an application to remit an arbitration award, the High Court held that the repealed Arbitration Act (Cap. 55) governed proceedings commenced before the 2000 Act took effect. There was no error of law in ordering a refund of monies paid under an illegal sub-lease: the parties were not in pari delicto and the plaintiff, who bore the larger guilt, would otherwise be unjustly enriched. The award was certain as to ownership of movable property and the arbitrators acted within their authority in deciding consequential matters integral to the reference. However, the award was uncertain as to the exact amounts of rent and monies refundable, and was remitted for reconsideration of those amounts, with a set-off for the defendant's six-year occupation.

Outcome

Arbitration award remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration limited to the specific amounts to be refunded; all other grounds rejected

Facts

The plaintiff, registered proprietor of the suit land, and GAPCO entered a sub-lease under which GAPCO paid rent and other monies and occupied the land. The plaintiff had earlier encumbered the land with a 99-year lease and failed to complete the statutory consent required to transfer land to a non-African transferee, so the transfer documentation stalled. Disputes arose and the matter went to arbitration. The arbitrators held the sub-lease invalid ab initio but ordered GAPCO refunded the monies it had paid, declared GAPCO owner of certain buildings and fixtures while the plaintiff owned the other movables, and resolved related ownership questions. The arbitrators specified one refund of Shs.3,500,000 but left other rent and refund figures, and the periods over which deductions were made, unascertained. The plaintiff applied to remit the award, contending error of law in ordering the refund, uncertainty in the award, and that the arbitrators had exceeded their terms of reference.

Issues

  1. Whether the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act No. 7 of 2000) or the repealed Arbitration Act (Cap. 55) governed an application concerning arbitral proceedings commenced before the new Act came into force.
  2. Whether there was an error of law apparent on the face of the award in ordering a refund of monies paid under a sub-lease found to be illegal ab initio.
  3. Whether the arbitration award was uncertain for failing to ascertain the specific amounts to be refunded and the particular movable items owned by each party.
  4. Whether the arbitrators exceeded their authority by determining matters outside their terms of reference.

Orders

  • The award is remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration of the specific amounts of rent and other monies to be refunded, reconciled against amounts deducted by the defendant, and a suitable set-off for the defendant's six-year occupation and use of the plaintiff's land.
  • The costs of the application are awarded to the applicant/plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Applicable Law — Repeal and Saving of Prior Statute
The repeal of the Arbitration Act (Cap. 55) by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2000 does not affect arbitral proceedings commenced before the new Act came into force; such proceedings remain governed by the repealed Act, consistent with the principle that repeal does not affect rights accrued under the repealed law.
Illegal Contracts — Recovery of Money Paid — In Pari Delicto and Unjust Enrichment
Money paid under an illegal agreement may be recovered where the parties are not in pari delicto and the party bearing the larger guilt would otherwise be unjustly enriched; ordering such a refund is not an error of law on the face of an arbitral award.
Arbitration — Remission of Award — Uncertainty as to Quantum
An arbitral award that orders refunds without ascertaining the specific amounts, the periods involved, or reconciling them against sums deducted, is uncertain to that extent and may be remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration of those amounts.
Arbitration — Arbitrator's Jurisdiction — Ultra Vires Balanced Against Duty of Finality
An arbitrator must decide neither more nor less than the dispute referred, yet must render a comprehensive award that leaves no substantive matter unresolved; deciding consequential matters that are integral to, and necessarily flow from, the issues referred is not acting ultra vires.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Arbitration Act (Cap. 55) s.11
  • Arbitration Rules (S.I. 55-01) rr.7, 8 & 16
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act No. 7 of 2000) s.75(2)
  • Interpretation Decree s.13(2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mistry Singh v Kulubya [1963] EA 408
  • Moledina v Hoima Ginners [1967] EA 645
  • Kariri Cotton Co Ltd v Ranchoddas Dewani [1967] EA 183
  • Shelley v Paddock [1980] QB 348
  • NUCCTC v Uganda Bookshop [1965] EA 531
  • Ross v Boards (1838) 8 Ad & El 290; 112 ER 847

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Joseph Lkito v GAI'CO (U) Ltd (miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2000) [2000] UGSC 38 (1 January 2000)
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.