Wakilii

Njeru Town Council V Nyanza Textiles Industries Ltd (Misc. Appl. No. 19 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 3 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for appointment of arbitrator under parties' lease agreement, with preliminary objection raised as to procedure and defectiveness of supporting affidavit
Decision
Application struck out for wrong procedure

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

An application to appoint an arbitrator under a lease agreement arbitration clause must be brought under Rule 16 of the Arbitration Rules by chamber summons, not under O.43 r.5 of the CPR by notice of motion. O.43 r.5 applies only to arbitrations under court order, not arbitrations by agreement under the Arbitration Act. The application was struck out for wrong procedure, though the challenge to the affidavit failed.

Outcome

Application struck out for wrong procedure

Facts

Njeru Town Council and Nyanza Textile Industries Ltd entered into a lease agreement containing an arbitration clause. The agreement provided that disputes would be referred to an arbitrator agreed by both parties, and failing agreement, an arbitrator would be appointed by a judge. Disputes arose over alleged breaches of the lease conditions including failure to pay rent, develop land, and sub-letting. The parties failed to agree on an arbitrator. The applicant brought the application under O.43 r.5 of the CPR by notice of motion, supported by an affidavit sworn by Dr. Byamugisha as counsel. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the wrong procedure was used and the affidavit was defective.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was brought under the correct procedural rule.
  2. Whether the supporting affidavit was defective for containing hearsay without disclosing the source of information.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application struck out with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Procedure — Appointment of Arbitrator — Arbitration by Agreement versus Arbitration by Court Order
Order 43 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules regulates arbitrations under court orders and provides procedure to commence proceedings in arbitrations by court order, whereas Rule 16 of the Arbitration Rules regulates arbitrations under the Arbitration Act and provides procedure to commence proceedings in arbitrations by agreement under that Act.
Arbitration — Procedure — Application to Appoint Arbitrator — Mandatory Procedure
An application to appoint an arbitrator under an arbitration agreement made pursuant to the Arbitration Act must be brought by chamber summons under Rule 16 of the Arbitration Rules, and bringing such application by notice of motion under O.43 r.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules constitutes wrong procedure and violates the mandatory provision of Rule 16.
Evidence — Affidavits — Hearsay — Disclosure of Source
Where an affidavit is based on information rather than personal knowledge, the source of that information must be disclosed, as this is not merely a matter of form but goes to the essential evidential value of the affidavit, since information from an unreliable source renders the affidavit without evidential value.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Challenge to Truthfulness — Burden of Proof
A challenge to the truthfulness of an affidavit's contents requires evidence to rebut the deponent's claim that the contents are based on personal knowledge, and argument at the bar is insufficient to rebut and disprove a sworn affidavit.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Arbitration Act Cap.55 s.19
  • Arbitration Rules r.16
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.5

Cases cited (6)

  • Misc. Cr. Application No. 54/74 reported in HCB (1974) on page 201
  • Bilimora v Bilimora (1962) EA 198
  • Mansion House Ltd v Wilkinson (1954) 21 EACA 101
  • Patrick Rwekibire v Kamaya (1972) ULR 1 166
  • P. Raichand v Quarry Services (1969) EA 514
  • Bitaitano v Kanaura (1977) HCB 33

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Njeru Town Council V Nyanza Textiles Industries Ltd (Misc. Appl. No. 19 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 3 (2 April 1992)
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.