Wakilii

National Water & Sewerage Corporation v Muhammed Btiwule (Miscellaneous Application 978 of 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 306 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed as time-barred

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 dismissed the application to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that it was filed out of time. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires applications to set aside arbitral awards to be made within one month of receipt of the award. The applicant received the arbitral award on 7 October 2015 but filed the application on 26 November 2015, nineteen days beyond the statutory deadline. Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. The Act contains no provision allowing enlargement of time. Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed as time-barred

Facts

The respondent applied for a certificate to levy distress for rent arrears on land leased to the applicant, National Water & Sewerage Corporation, which operated water infrastructure on the property. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court Execution Division stayed the distress proceedings and referred the matter to arbitration on 3 December 2014. Following arbitration, an award was issued on 23 September 2015 declaring the lease terminated, ordering payment of arrears, mesne profits at UGX 120,025,000 per annum, and general damages of UGX 20,000,000, with interest. The arbitral award was delivered to the parties on 7 October 2015. The applicant filed an application to set aside the arbitral award on 26 November 2015, arguing that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to refer the matter to arbitration, the award exceeded the scope of reference, was contrary to public policy, and was delivered beyond the statutory time limit. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was time-barred under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to set aside the arbitral award is bad and barred in law for being filed out of time.
  2. Whether the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the reference to arbitration.
  3. Whether the arbitral award is not in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  4. Whether the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of Uganda.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Setting Aside Awards — Time Limits — Mandatory Statutory Period
An application to set aside an arbitral award must be made within one month from the date on which the party making the application received the arbitral award. Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act contains no provision allowing enlargement of time for filing such applications.
Receipt of Award — Date of Receipt — Delivery to Parties
The relevant date for purposes of computing the one-month period for setting aside an arbitral award is the date on which the party received a signed copy of the award delivered to them, not the date on which the award was filed or registered in court. Where a party's legal representative acknowledges receipt of the award, that acknowledgment establishes the date of receipt.
Court Intervention — Limited Scope — Section 9 Restriction
Court intervention in matters governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is restricted to instances expressly provided for in the Act. In the absence of provisions allowing enlargement of time under the Act, the court has no power to extend the statutory deadline for challenging an arbitral award.
Preliminary Objections — Points of Law — No Need for Affidavit Evidence
Where a preliminary objection raised is a point of law, it does not need to be deposed upon in an affidavit for it to be addressed by the court. A preliminary point of law may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (16)

  • Male Mabirizi and Another v Owere Franco and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2763 of 2014)
  • Masaka District Growers Co-operative Union v Mumpiwakoma Co-operative Society Limited and Others [1968] 1 EA 630
  • Lillian S v. Caltex Oil (K) [1986-1989] 1 EA 305
  • Kagenyi v. Musiramo and another [1968] 1 EA 43
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Christ for All Nations v. Apollo Insurance Co. Ltd. (2002) 2 EA 366
  • Warugongo V. Total (K) Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA 835
  • Soroti Joint Medical Services Limited v Sino Africa Medicines and Health Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 2015)
  • Makula International Ltd v. Cardinal Wamala Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • National Social Security Fund v Alcon International (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Steven Seruwagi Kamuma v Barclays Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0332 of 2008)
  • Orient Bank Limited v Avi Enterprises Ltd (Civil Suit No. 147 of 2012)
  • SDR Transami v Agrimag Ltd (Arbitration Cause No. 2 of 2006)
  • Roko Construction Ltd v Mohammed Mohammed Hamid (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2011)
  • Aya Bakery (U) Ltd v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 661 of 2010)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Water & Sewerage Corporation v Muhammed Btiwule (Miscellaneous Application 978 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 306 (20 October 2016)
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.