Wakilii

Kenlloyd Logistics (U) Limited v Fratch AG (Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 16 · 2025 Application Granted — Award Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside an arbitral award delivered by the Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Arbitral award set aside; matter remitted to CADER for retrial before a new arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties

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 set aside the arbitral award delivered on 20 June 2023 on the ground that the arbitrator exhibited evident partiality by delivering the award based on a contested and incomplete record of proceedings despite the applicant's repeated objections. The court found that the arbitrator abdicated his duty to prepare a correct and complete record, instead relying on the parties to reconstitute it, and then proceeded to deliver the award without resolving the applicant's complaints about missing evidence from the cross-examination of a key witness. This conduct contravened Section 34(2)(a)(vi) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and created an uneven ground for the parties.

Outcome

Arbitral award set aside; matter remitted to CADER for retrial before a new arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties

Facts

Fratch AG commenced arbitration against Kenlloyd Logistics (U) Ltd before the Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution claiming USD 145,980.42 for unpaid invoices. The parties appointed Arbitrator Wilson Keezi, who delivered an award against Kenlloyd on 20 June 2023. During the arbitration, the arbitrator shared three different versions of the record of proceedings with the parties. Kenlloyd repeatedly objected that the records were incomplete and omitted material evidence from the cross-examination of Fratch's witness, Joram Nyanzi, regarding payments received. Specifically, evidence showing that the witness could not confirm receipt of certain payments was not captured in the final record. Despite Kenlloyd's protest on 19 June 2023 that the record remained inaccurate and their request for an extension to respond to submissions, the arbitrator delivered the award the next day without addressing the objections or rectifying the record. Kenlloyd applied to the High Court to set aside the award on grounds of evident partiality, bias, and failure to accord a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Arbitral Award delivered on 20 June 2023 should be set aside on grounds of evident partiality, bias, and procedural irregularity.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Arbitral Award delivered on 20 June 2023 in CAD/ARB/28/2021 is hereby set aside.
  • The dispute between the parties is referred back to CADER (Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution) for retrial before a new arbitrator as shall be agreed upon by the parties.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Setting Aside Arbitral Awards — Evident Partiality — Incomplete Record of Proceedings
An arbitral award may be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(vi) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act where the arbitrator exhibits evident partiality by delivering an award based on a contested and incomplete record of proceedings despite a party's repeated objections that material evidence was omitted, thereby creating uneven ground for the parties and denying fair treatment.
Record of Proceedings — Arbitrator's Duty to Ensure Accuracy and Completeness
An arbitrator has a duty to prepare a correct, complete, and accurate record of proceedings. The arbitrator must not abdicate this duty by largely relying on the parties to reconstitute the record. A decision based on an incorrect or incomplete record of proceedings occasions a miscarriage of justice, and the arbitrator must exercise caution to ensure the record is accurate before delivering an award.
Evident Partiality — Test and Application
Evident partiality does not require proof of actual dishonesty, fraud, or corruption. Partiality is established if it is demonstrated that the scales were not even — that is, the arbitrator failed to treat the parties equally in permitting the presentation of their cases, consideration of the same, and decision-making. The test is whether a party could reasonably apprehend that bias might have operated against them in the final decision.
Court's Limited Jurisdiction in Reviewing Arbitral Awards
An application to set aside an arbitral award is not an appeal. The court's jurisdiction is limited to examining the procedure adopted by the arbitrator to reach the award, not to re-evaluate the evidence or the arbitrator's decision on merits. The court cannot modify or substitute the arbitrator's decision on merits. Arbitration awards are final unless procured contrary to law as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Costs — Discretion Where No Fault by Either Party
Where a matter comes before the court not because of any fault of the parties but because of a deficiency in the conduct of an arbitrator or other third-party adjudicator, the court may exercise its discretion under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to order that each party bears its own costs rather than condemning the unsuccessful party to costs.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Seyani Brothers & Co. Ltd v Cassia Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2011)
  • NIC v ARCONSULTS ARCHITECTS (1984) 1 KALR at 112
  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd v Seyani Brothers Company (U) Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 555 of 2022)
  • Charles Twagira v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2003)
  • Airtel Uganda Ltd v Opportunity Bank (Arbitration Cause No. 12 of 2013)
  • Kilembe Mines Ltd v B.M Steel Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2005)
  • Uganda Development versus Muganga Constructions [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kenlloyd Logistics (U) Limited v Fratch AG (Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 16 (6 March 2025)
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.