Mbarara University of Science & Technology v Block Technical Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application 397 of 2022)
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 court held that the contract contained no clear arbitration clause requiring automatic referral to arbitration. While clauses 34.1-34.4 of the General Conditions of Contract provided procedural mechanisms for dispute resolution, they did not constitute a specific submission to arbitration where parties agreed disputes would be referred to an arbitrator. The court distinguished between adjudication provisions (for disputes about project manager decisions under clause 33.1) and general dispute resolution. The application to refer the matter to arbitration was dismissed, though the court offered the parties the option to voluntarily refer the dispute to ICAMEK for arbitration.
Outcome
Application dismissed with option for parties to voluntarily refer dispute to ICAMEK for arbitration
Facts
The applicant (defendant in the main suit) sought to have Civil Suit No. 101 of 2022 dismissed and the dispute referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arguing that the contract between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause. The contract's Special Conditions specified that the procedure for settling disputes shall be CADER and that arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in Kampala. The respondent (plaintiff) opposed, arguing that the arbitration provisions only applied after adjudication of disputes concerning project manager decisions under clause 33.1, and that the main suit concerned breach of contract with no reference to project manager decisions. A preliminary issue arose regarding whether Justice Mubiru had already ruled on the arbitration clause when the matter was previously before the Commercial Division, but the court found that ruling had not been completed as the judge did not have the file.
Issues
- Whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and if so, whether the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable against the parties?
- What are the remedies to the parties?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Should the parties so decide, the matter can be referred for arbitration to the International Center for Arbitration and Mediation (ICAMEK) in accordance with clauses 34.1-34.4 GCC to be concluded within 90 days of such decision.
- The costs of the suit shall abide the outcome of the arbitration.
- Each party shall bear their own costs of the instant application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.5
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.9
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Arbitration Rules r.13
- Civil Procedure Rules O.12 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.47
Cases cited (3)
- Yaya Farajallah v Obur Ronald & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 0081 of 2018)
- Panyimur Rural Co-operative Savings and Others v The Microfinance Support Centre (Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2014)
- Dott Services Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 228 of 2017)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.