Wakilii

Nambale Enterprises Ltd v Busitema University (CAD ARB 3 of 2013)

Tribunal · [2013] UGCADER 3 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for compulsory appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Adjudicator appointed to resolve disputes arising from contract terminations

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

Held that where a contract dispute does not arise from a Project Manager's decision under Clause 24.1, the generic dispute resolution procedure in Clause 25.2 applies, allowing direct appointment of an adjudicator. The definition of adjudicator in the contract is synonymous with arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.2(1)(e), and the Centre's power to compulsorily appoint an arbitrator under s.11 applies equally to appointment of an adjudicator. Adjudicator appointed; costs awarded to applicant.

Outcome

Adjudicator appointed to resolve disputes arising from contract terminations

Facts

Nambale Enterprises Ltd entered into three construction contracts with Busitema University on 25 June 2009: rehabilitation of a mechanical workshop, refurbishment of staff houses, and construction of male ablutions. The University terminated the mechanical workshop contract on 9 March 2011 and the Nagongera Campus works on 5 August 2011. On 29 November 2012, the Applicant served a Notice of Arbitration on the Respondent. The Respondent did not reply or take action on the Notice. The contracts contained dispute resolution clauses providing for adjudication of disputes regarding Project Manager decisions (Clause 24.1) and a general dispute resolution procedure (Clauses 25.2-25.4) referencing the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The termination letters indicated decisions were made by the Contracts Committee, not the Project Manager.

Issues

  1. Whether the dispute must first be referred to adjudication before arbitration under the contract's dispute resolution clause.
  2. Whether the Centre has power to compulsorily appoint an adjudicator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.11.

Orders

  • Mr. Victor Odongo appointed as adjudicator in respect of the University Mechanical Workshop and Nagongera Campus Works Contracts.
  • Should Mr. Victor Odongo decline, Mr. Bharat B Gupta or Dr. Anania Mbabazi may be approached in sequential order.
  • Half costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Appointment of Adjudicator — Compulsory Appointment — Scope of Tribunal's Power
The power to effect compulsory appointment of an arbitrator under s.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act applies equally to the compulsory appointment of an adjudicator where the contract defines the adjudicator as a person appointed jointly by the parties to resolve disputes in the first instance, which is synonymous with the function of an arbitration agreement under s.2(1)(e) of the Act.
Contract Law — Dispute Resolution Clauses — Interpretation — Adjudication vs Arbitration
Where a contract provides for adjudication of disputes arising from a Project Manager's decision under one clause and a general dispute resolution procedure under another, the specific clause applies only to Project Manager decisions while the general procedure applies to all other disputes.
Statutory Interpretation — Purposive Construction — Arbitration and Conciliation Act
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be purposefully construed, and there is no provision in the Act which restricts the definition of an arbitrator in a manner that would exclude adjudicators performing the same function of resolving disputes by agreement of the parties.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.2(1)(e)
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.11

Cases cited (1)

  • Board of Governors, John Paul S.S. Chelekura v Kheny Technical Services Ltd (CAD ARB 22 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambale Enterprises Ltd v Busitema University (CAD ARB 3 of 2013) [2013] UGCADER 3 (12 March 2013)
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.