National Social Security Fund and Others v Alcon International Limited (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2004)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to stay the suit and refer the dispute to arbitration under the court's inherent powers, given the parties' contractual arbitration clause. It held the arbitrator was validly appointed by the head of the EAIA and that the appellants, having participated fully in the arbitration and delayed challenging the appointment, could not later object. Requesting deposits and accepting them from one party did not amount to misconduct where the arbitrator was appointed on his own terms. Although the award was made out of time, the appellants had by conduct acquiesced in the delay. No errors of law on the face of the record warranted setting the award aside.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; arbitral award and High Court decision upheld

Facts

In July 1994 Alcon International Limited contracted with the National Social Security Fund to complete a partially constructed building on Plot 1 Pilkington Road, Kampala, with W.H. Ssentoogo t/a Ssentoogo & Partners engaged as architect. The contract was varied several times, and NSSF terminated it on 15 May 1998 alleging defaults, which Alcon disputed. Alcon sued for wrongful termination and sought a temporary injunction. In June 1999 the High Court refused the injunction but stayed the suit and referred the dispute to arbitration under clause 36 of the contract. The parties failed to agree an arbitrator, so Alcon referred the matter to the East African Institute of Architects, whose President appointed the arbitrator. The appellants participated in the arbitration but later applied to remove the arbitrator for bias and to set aside the award for errors of law, misconduct and improper procurement. Both applications were dismissed in September 2003, leading to this appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in staying the suit and referring the matter to arbitration in the absence of an application by the parties under Order 43/47 rule 1(1).
2. Whether the arbitration and the arbitral award were improperly procured.
3. Whether the arbitrator was validly appointed by the President of the East African Institute of Architects.
4. Whether the arbitrator misconducted himself by conducting proceedings over objection, requiring and receiving deposits from one party, and accepting hospitality.
5. Whether an arbitral award made out of the three-month time limit is invalid, and whether the appellants waived their right to object to it.
6. Whether there were errors of law on the face of the record warranting setting aside the award.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (20)

• Arbitration Act (Cap 55) s.6
• Arbitration Act (Cap 55) s.9
• Arbitration Act (Cap 55) s.10
• Arbitration Act (Cap 55) s.12
• Arbitration Act (Cap 55) s.14
• Arbitration Act (Cap 55) s.17
• Arbitration Act (Cap 55) First Schedule rule 3
• Arbitration Act (Cap 55) rule 10(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 rule 1(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 47 rule 1(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 5
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 3
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 139(1)
• Judicature Act s.14(2)
• Architects Registration Act s.32(2)

Cases cited (14)

• Mike Harley & Others vs. Overseas International Fisheries Ltd & 2 others, Miscellaneous Application No. 605 of 2001
• Charles Rodney Huxley vs. West London Ext. Rly Co. (1889) 14 Ac at p. 26
• Sheik vs. Dubat Farah [1959] E.A. 789
• K. S. Norjal A/S vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. [1991] 3 ALL ER 211
• Prasum Roy vs. Calcutta Metropolitan Dev. [1988] LRC (Comm) at p. 567,570 and 571
• Yugasta Construction vs. CMB Arb. Cause No. 1/1990
• Rashid Moledina vs. Hoima Ginners Ltd [1967] EA 645 at 647
• Construction Engineers & Builders Ltd vs. Sugar Dev. Corp (1985) 596 at pp. 603 and 607
• Homes and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Mentor Insurance Co. (UK) Ltd (INLIQ) para 74 at page 78
• Shell (U) Ltd v Agip (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1995)
• Suleiman Versi Ltd vs. Lakhani & Co. [1957] EA. P. 491 at p. 493
• Credit Finance Corp. vs. Ali Mwakisanga [1959] EA 79
• Total (U) Ltd vs. Buramba General Agencies Ltd Arb. App. 3/93
• Mehar Singh Bros. Ltd. vs. Ruparel Investment Ltd. [1964] EA 324

Cases citing this judgment (9)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Trust Builders & Civil Engineers Limited v Kayonza Growers Tea Factory (Civil Suit No. 1143 of 2023)
• Kapta & Another v Mangusho (Civil Appeal 142 of 2023)
• Alcon International Limited v National Social Security Fund (Civil Suit 133 of 2020)
• Kachra Investiment Company Limited v Mbale Municipal Council Local Covernment and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2014)
• Byamugisha v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No. 19 of 2012)
• Byamugisha t a J.B. Byamugisha Advocates v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No.I9 of 2012)
• National Social Security Fund & Anor v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal 15 of 2009)
• National Social Security Fund and Another v Alcon International Limited (Civil Appeal No 15 of 2009)
• National Social Security Fund v. Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appl. No. 149 of 2011)

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