Wakilii

Oryx Energies (U) Limited v Oyster Energies Limited (Arbitration Cause 4 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 382 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside a final arbitral award
Decision
Application to set aside the arbitral award dismissed; the award is upheld as valid, final, binding and enforceable, 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 the application to set aside a final ICAMEK arbitral award. It held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act its role is strictly supervisory and it cannot review the merits. There was no breach of Section 18 or natural justice: the arbitrator offered the applicant a right of reply which it waived. Admitting late submissions was a permissible exercise of discretion under ICAMEK Rule 37(1)(b), not a public-policy violation. Taxing costs within the award was authorised by Section 31(9) and ICAMEK Rule 44. The valuation of the subject matter and rejection of fuel offsets were findings within jurisdiction. No evident partiality was shown; the award was upheld.

Outcome

Application to set aside the arbitral award dismissed; the award is upheld as valid, final, binding and enforceable, with costs to the respondent.

Facts

On 25 November 2016 Oryx and Oyster executed a written contract for bulk transportation of petroleum products from Kenya to Uganda, governed by Ugandan law. On 16 November 2023 the parties varied the agreement to refer disputes to a sole arbitrator, Ms. Olivia Kyarimpa Matovu, under the ICAMEK Arbitration Rules 2018. Oyster (claimant) sought payment for transportation services; Oryx counterclaimed UGX 412,384,065, asserting that all fees were settled through automatic fuel-credit offsets under Clause 8.15. After evidentiary hearings between February and July 2025, Oyster filed its written submissions and rejoinder late. At a virtual meeting on 4 September 2025 the arbitrator consulted both parties and offered Oryx an opportunity to file responsive submissions, which Oryx's counsel declined. On 30 January 2026 the arbitrator awarded Oyster the transport sum plus simple interest at 10% per annum, dismissed the counterclaim on the basis that no separate supply agreement existed and the fuel had been separately paid for, and taxed costs within the award. Oryx applied to set the award aside under Section 34.

Issues

  1. Whether the arbitral award was not in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  2. Whether the award is contrary to the public policy of Uganda.
  3. Whether the applicant was denied an opportunity to fairly present its case.
  4. Whether the tribunal acted contrary to public policy by not following the prescribed procedure for taxation of costs.
  5. Whether the arbitrator erred by taxing costs on a subject-matter value of UGX 986,931,936 contrary to the parties' submissions.
  6. Whether there was evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the Final Arbitral Award dated 30th January 2026 is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The Final Arbitral Award delivered by Ms. Olivia Kyarimpa Matovu under ICAMEK Case No. 2023/022 is upheld as valid, final, binding, and fully enforceable.
  • The costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration — Setting Aside under Section 34 — No Review of the Merits
An application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a recourse directed at the structural and procedural integrity of the arbitral process, not its substantive correctness; the supervisory court does not sit as an appellate court and cannot substitute its own factual or legal conclusions for those of the tribunal even where the tribunal may be wrong in law.
Arbitration — Natural Justice — Reasonable Opportunity to be Heard and Waiver
Section 18 requires only that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to present and answer the case; where a tribunal offers a party a responsive right of reply which that party consciously declines, the requirements of Section 18 and natural justice are satisfied and the party is deemed under the rules to have waived and is estopped from later objecting.
Arbitration — Public Policy Exception — Narrow Construction
The public policy exception under Section 34 is to be strictly and narrowly construed; a routine procedural or case-management choice does not become a public policy violation unless it shocks the conscience of the court and subverts the most basic notions of justice, and it may not be used as a disguised appeal on the merits.
Arbitration — Costs — Tribunal's Power to Assess and Tax Costs Within the Award
Under Section 31(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the applicable arbitration rules, an arbitral tribunal has a primary statutory power to determine, apportion and specify the quantum of costs within its award and is not bound to follow the administrative taxation procedures of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, which serve only as a persuasive standard.
Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Errors Within Scope of Submission Not Jurisdictional
Where an issue falls within the scope of the parties' submission to arbitration, the tribunal's determination of it does not exceed jurisdiction merely because the tribunal reaches a wrong, even manifestly wrong, conclusion; a tribunal's interpretation of the contract and evaluation of the evidence is final and not reviewable on setting aside.
Arbitration — Evident Partiality — Objective Test of Even Scales
Evident partiality need not be actuated by dishonesty or corruption; it is established objectively where the record or award shows that the arbitrator failed to keep the scales of justice even, and a tribunal that rigorously audits and substantially reduces the successful party's claim and costs cannot be said to have exhibited bias in that party's favour.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (10)

  • Lakeside Dairy Ltd v International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation Kampala & Midland Emporium Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 21 of 2021)
  • BRQ v BRS [2019] SGHC 260
  • Kampala International University v Housing Finance Company Ltd (Arbitration Causes Nos. 38 & 46 of 2024)
  • Jones Cici and Sons v Urban Foundation 1978 (3) SA 190
  • Reign Publishers & Anor v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Arbitration Cause No. 2 of 2025)
  • Kilembe Mines Ltd v B.M. Steel Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2005)
  • Mbale Soapworks Ltd v Lubulwa Hamza (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2024)
  • Smile Communications Uganda Ltd v ATC Uganda Ltd & Anor (Application Cause No. 4 of 2022)
  • Roko Construction Ltd v Pearl Marina (Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2025)
  • Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co (Pte) Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Oryx Energies (U) Limited v Oyster Energies Limited (Arbitration Cause 4 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 382 (9 August 2026)
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.