Wakilii

Jubilee Insurance Co of Uganda and Anor v SDv Transami (Uganda) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 592 of 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 81 · 2007 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for enforcement of an arbitral award pending determination of proceedings to set aside the award
Decision
Application for security for enforcement of arbitral award granted; respondent ordered to provide security within 30 days

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 High Court has jurisdiction under Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to order security for enforcement of an arbitral award pending determination of an application to set aside the award, notwithstanding arguments that Rule 12 of the Arbitration Rules is redundant. The court ordered security, considering the length of the dispute, the respondent's stated ability to pay, and the interests of justice.

Outcome

Application for security for enforcement of arbitral award granted; respondent ordered to provide security within 30 days

Facts

The applicants were successful parties in arbitration proceedings before Retired Chief Justice Wambuzi, who issued an award on 29 March 2006. The respondent commenced proceedings to set aside the award. The applicants applied for an order for security for enforcement of the arbitral award and for costs. The respondent objected, contending that Rule 12 of the Arbitration Rules was redundant and that the court lacked jurisdiction to order security because there is no provision for security for costs in respect of appeals to the High Court. The dispute between the parties arose in 2000 and had been ongoing for approximately seven years by the time of this ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction under Rule 12 of the Arbitration Rules to order security for enforcement of an arbitral award where there is no express provision for security for costs in respect of appeals to the High Court.
  2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to order the respondent to provide security for enforcement of the arbitral award.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection to jurisdiction is rejected.
  • The respondent shall, not later than 30 days from the date of ruling, deposit in court a local bank irrevocable guarantee that such bank will pay such sums of money as shall be due on the award that the court may confirm, on behalf of the respondent, to the applicants, on demand by the applicants.
  • In the alternative, the respondent may deposit in court such other security as may be acceptable to the applicants.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Security for Enforcement of Award — Court's Jurisdiction under Section 34(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Where a party applies to set aside an arbitral award, the court has substantive power under Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to order the objecting party to provide appropriate security for enforcement of the award, regardless of whether procedural rules are redundant or incomplete.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Rules of Procedure as Handmaidens of Justice
The absence or redundancy of a procedural rule does not void or fetter the court's discretion to exercise substantive power conferred by primary legislation; rules of procedure are intended to serve as handmaidens of justice, not to defeat it.
Arbitration & ADR — Security for Enforcement — Interpretation of Rule 12 of Arbitration Rules
Rule 12 of the Arbitration Rules, which provides that the court may order security 'in like manner as though the objector were appealing against a decree', does not limit the court's jurisdiction to cases where there are written provisions for security in respect of High Court appeals; the phrase means the court exercises discretion upon the same principles as it applies when ordering security for performance of decrees from which appeals have been made.
Arbitration & ADR — Security for Enforcement — Discretionary Factors — Delay and Ability to Pay
In deciding whether to order security for enforcement of an arbitral award, relevant factors include the length of time the dispute has been ongoing, the objecting party's stated ability to satisfy the award, and the lack of prejudice to the objecting party if security is ordered.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kenya Shell Ltd v Benjamin Kibiru [1982-1988] 1 KAR 1018
  • Iron & Steelwares Ltd v CW Martyr & Co (1956) 23 EACA 175
  • Alexandria Cotton & Trading Company (Sudan) Ltd v Cotton Company of Ethiopia Ltd [1965] 2 Lloyd's Rep 447

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jubilee Insurance Co of Uganda and Anor v SDv Transami (Uganda) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 592 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 81 (17 October 2007)
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.