Wakilii

Nawa Multi-Services Ltd v Kirangi Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 42 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitral award arising from CAD/ARB/No. 48 of 2018
Decision
Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 an application to set aside an arbitral award. The court held that the application was not time barred, having been filed on the last permissible day under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. On the merits, the court found that the applicant failed to prove any of the statutory grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34(2). The court emphasised that it does not sit as an appellate court when assessing whether to set aside an arbitral award, and that the arbitrator is the final arbiter of disputes where parties have selected arbitration as their forum.

Outcome

Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant and respondent entered into a contract on 19 April 2017 for printing, binding and delivery of health books and file folders for National Medical Stores. A dispute arose and the respondent referred the matter to arbitration at CADRE. On 13 December 2019, an arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the respondent UGX 183,083,348 as the balance on the contractual sum. The applicant contended it only owed UGX 48,000,000 and sought to set aside the award. The applicant alleged that after a dispute arose, the parties had reached a new arrangement waiving the original contract sum and agreeing on UGX 148,000,000, of which UGX 100,000,000 had been paid. The respondent argued the application was time barred and that no waiver had occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is time barred.
  2. Whether the arbitral award in CAD/ARB/No. 48 of 2018 dated 21st November, 2019 should be set aside.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Setting Aside Awards — Time Limits — Computation of Time
An application to set aside an arbitral award must be filed within one month from the date on which the party making the application received the award, and an application filed on the last permissible day is not time barred.
Arbitration & ADR — Setting Aside Awards — Scope of Court's Jurisdiction — Not an Appellate Process
When a court is called upon to decide whether to set aside an arbitral award, its jurisdiction is limited as expressly indicated in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and it has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and examine the award on merits or re-evaluate evidence.
Arbitration & ADR — Finality of Arbitral Awards — Arbitrator as Final Arbiter
The arbitrator is the final arbiter of disputes between parties and the award is not open to challenge on the grounds that the arbitrator has drawn his own conclusions or has failed to appreciate the facts, and where parties have selected their forum, the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of the evidence.
Arbitration & ADR — Setting Aside Awards — Grounds — Issues Beyond Scope of Reference
An arbitral award may be set aside if it deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of reference to arbitration, but where the final award covered the issues agreed upon by the parties at scheduling before hearing of witness testimony, it does not fall outside the scope of reference merely because one party sought to introduce new questions during submissions.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd v Seyani Brothers Company (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 555 of 2002)
  • Chevron Kenya Limited and Another v Daqare Transporters Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 490 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nawa Multi-Services Ltd v Kirangi Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2020) [2022] UGCommC 42 (28 June 2022)
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.