Wakilii

Pan Afric Impex (U) Ltd v Roko Construction (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 487 of 2010)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 26 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitral award arising from arbitration concerning building contract breach
Decision
Application dismissed; arbitral award stands

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 an arbitrator has a statutory lien to withhold delivery of an award from a party that has not paid its share of arbitration fees, and that a party challenging excessive fees must apply to court under section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before refusal to pay is justified. The court further held that where the arbitrator relied on testimony and measurements from a registered quantity surveyor rather than documents signed by an unregistered surveyor, there was no error of law on the face of the award.

Outcome

Application dismissed; arbitral award stands

Facts

Pan Afric Impex (U) Ltd and Roko Construction (U) Ltd entered into a building contract in June 2005 for construction of an office block at Plot 117 Bombo Road, Kawempe, for UGX 865,531,843 plus VAT. Roko filed an arbitration claim alleging breaches by Pan Afric and its architects. Hon. Justice E. Torgbor was appointed arbitrator and awarded Roko UGX 2,201,501,198 as special damages, UGX 500,000,000 as general damages, interest and costs. Pan Afric paid an initial USD 12,000 towards the arbitrator's fees but refused to pay the balance of USD 49,868, contending the fees were excessive. Roko paid the outstanding fees to access the award. The arbitrator delivered the award only to Roko, not to Pan Afric. Pan Afric challenged the award on grounds that it was not delivered to them as required by law, that it relied on evidence from Eridard Nyanzi who was not a registered quantity surveyor, and that it contravened public policy.

Issues

  1. Whether the arbitral procedure was in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, specifically regarding delivery of the award to the applicant under section 31(8).
  2. Whether the arbitral award contained errors of law on the face of the award by relying on valuations from an unregistered quantity surveyor.
  3. Whether the award contained decisions contrary to established legal principles and the public policy of Uganda.

Orders

  • Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Arbitral Awards — Delivery of Award — Arbitrator's Lien for Unpaid Fees
An arbitrator has a lien over an arbitral award for outstanding fees and is entitled to withhold delivery of the award from a party that has not paid its share of the arbitration fees, even where another party has paid the balance to access the award.
Arbitration & ADR — Arbitration Fees — Challenge to Excessive Fees
Where a party contends that an arbitrator's fees are excessive, the proper remedy is to apply to court under section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to adjust the fees before refusing payment; failure to make such an application precludes the party from later challenging the excessiveness of fees in subsequent proceedings.
Arbitration & ADR — Setting Aside Awards — Error of Law on Face of Award
An arbitral award does not contain an error of law on its face where the tribunal explicitly considered the objection that a quantity surveyor was unregistered, declined to rely on that person's testimony or valuations, and instead based its findings on evidence from a registered quantity surveyor whose measurements and valuations were admitted by consent and not challenged.
Contract Law — Validity — Attestation by Unqualified Witness
A contract is not rendered illegal merely because an attesting witness holds himself out as a quantity surveyor without a practicing certificate where the witness's role is limited to attesting the authenticity of signatures and not to performing professional surveying services under the contract.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Chevron Kenya Limited & Chevron Uganda Ltd v Dagare Transporters Limited (MA No. 490 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pan Afric Impex (U) Ltd v Roko Construction (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 487 of 2010) [2013] UGCommC 26 (19 February 2013)
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.