Wakilii

Planbuild Technical Services Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1273 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 136 · 2025 Suit Stayed — Referred to Arbitration AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaratory orders and financial redress arising from alleged breach of construction contract
Decision
Suit stayed and parties referred to arbitration

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 held that a dispute concerning non-payment of retention monies under a construction contract fell within the scope of the arbitration clause where the dispute arose from a determination by the Project Manager. The court found that the Permanent Secretary's letter refusing payment constituted a Project Manager's decision under the contract, triggering the contractual dispute resolution mechanism. The suit was stayed and parties directed to arbitration in accordance with the contract's dispute settlement clause.

Outcome

Suit stayed and parties referred to arbitration

Facts

On 7 October 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Government of Uganda through the Rural Electrification Agency for rural electrification schemes in Bushenyi and Rukungiri districts. The Plaintiff asserted it fully performed its contractual obligations and handed over completed works, but the Defendant failed to release retention monies of UGX 209,183,258 and did not issue a completion certificate. The Defendant contended the Plaintiff did not complete works according to specifications, failed to submit final accounts to the Project Manager before the end of the Defects Liability Period, and did not comply with requirements for project closure. The Permanent Secretary wrote to the Plaintiff on 9 November 2021 stating the money could not be paid as project closure had not been carried out.

Issues

  1. Whether the claim in this suit falls within the arbitration clause under the contract and is therefore governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Orders

  • The suit is stayed.
  • The parties are directed to resolve the dispute by arbitration in accordance with the dispute settlement clause under the Agreement.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Scope of Arbitration Clause — Disputes Arising from Project Manager's Determinations
Where a construction contract contains an arbitration clause covering disputes arising from decisions of the Project Manager, a dispute concerning non-payment of retention monies falls within the scope of that clause if the refusal to pay constitutes a determination by the Project Manager under the contract.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Stay of Proceedings in Favour of Arbitration
Under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a court must stay proceedings and refer parties to arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists and the dispute falls within its scope, unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, or there is no dispute between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Limitation on High Court's Unlimited Jurisdiction
The unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139(1) of the Constitution is not absolute but is subject to statutory limitations, including those created by valid arbitration agreements between parties.
Arbitration & ADR — Party Autonomy — Effect to be Given to Arbitration Agreements
Where parties have evinced a clear intention to settle disputes by arbitration, the court should give effect to such intention even if certain aspects of the agreement may be ambiguous, inconsistent, incomplete or lacking in certain particulars, so long as the arbitration can be carried out without prejudice to the rights of either party.
Contract Law — Construction Contracts — Role of Project Manager in Certification
In a construction contract, where the Project Manager is designated as the person responsible for supervising execution of works and administering the contract, the authority to issue certificates of completion and determine whether works have been substantially completed is vested exclusively in the Project Manager, not the Employer.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Babcon (U) Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2011)
  • Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo Swali (Miscellaneous Application No. 0001 of 2016)
  • Fulgensius Mungereza v Africa Central (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2001)
  • Smile Communications Uganda Ltd v ATC Uganda Ltd & Anor (Arbitration Cause No. 4 of 2022)
  • Heyam and Another v Darwins Ltd [1942] 1 All ER 337
  • Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd [2009] SGCA 24

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Planbuild Technical Services Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1273 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 136 (15 June 2025)
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.