Wakilii

Plinth Technical Works Ltd v Hoima Municipal Local Government Council (CAD ARB 63 of 2017)

Tribunal · [2018] UGCADER 4 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to CADER for appointment of arbitrator following dispute over outstanding payments under construction contract
Decision
Application granted and arbitrator to be appointed to resolve dispute over outstanding payments

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 tribunal held that where parties mutually disengage from a construction contract and the dispute does not arise from a contested Project Manager decision, the dispute resolution clause provides for direct arbitration under GCC Clause 25.4 rather than the adjudication procedure under GCC Clause 24.1. The tribunal found that the parties had misinterpreted the dispute resolution clause by attempting to invoke adjudication when no Project Manager decision was in issue. The application for appointment of an arbitrator was granted.

Outcome

Application granted and arbitrator to be appointed to resolve dispute over outstanding payments

Facts

The parties executed a construction agreement on 13 December 2015 for road works in Hoima Municipality. Following mutual disengagement, a dispute arose regarding outstanding payments owed to the applicant contractor. On 11 August 2017, the applicant requested the Uganda Institute of Professional Engineers to appoint an adjudicator. UIPE appointed an adjudicator on 16 August 2017 under GCC Clause 24.1. The respondent initially did not respond but later confirmed acceptance of the adjudicator on 8 November 2017. By the date of filing the application to CADER, the appointed adjudicator had not presided over the dispute. The applicant applied to CADER for appointment of an arbitrator. Both parties agreed that no Project Manager decision was being contested and had not established a framework for adjudication proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the dispute arising from mutual disengagement falls within the adjudication procedure under GCC Clause 24.1 and 25.2-25.3, or within the general arbitration procedure under GCC Clause 25.4.
  2. Whether CADER has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator where no Project Manager decision is being contested.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Arbitrator to be appointed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Construction Contracts — Dispute Resolution Clauses — Interpretation of Multi-Tiered Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Where a construction contract provides for adjudication of disputes arising from Project Manager decisions under GCC Clause 24.1 and separate arbitration under GCC Clause 25.4, disputes arising from mutual disengagement that do not involve a contested Project Manager decision fall within the general arbitration procedure under Clause 25.4 rather than the adjudication procedure.
Arbitration & ADR — Adjudication — Scope of Adjudication Clause — Project Manager Decisions
An adjudication clause in a construction contract that requires disputes to be referred to an adjudicator within 14 days of notification of a Project Manager decision applies only where the contractor contests a specific decision taken by the Project Manager, and does not apply to disputes arising from mutual disengagement where no Project Manager decision is in issue.
Contract Law — Construction Contracts — Dispute Resolution — Two-Track Arbitration System
GCC Clause 25 provides for two types of arbitration: first, arbitration under Clause 25.3 as an appeal forum from an adjudicator's decision; and second, general arbitration under Clause 25.4 for other disputes arising between the parties that do not involve adjudication.
Arbitration & ADR — Jurisdiction — Duty of Tribunal to Take Jurisdictional Points
It is the duty of a tribunal, when asked to give a decision, to take jurisdictional points arising from statute or contract even where the parties have not raised them, following the principle in Phillips v Copping that a court must take points contrary to statute even if litigants do not.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Arbitration Act

Cases cited (2)

  • Phillips v Copping [1935] 1 KB 15
  • Plinth Technical Works Ltd v Fort Portal Municipal Council (CAD ARB 62 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Plinth Technical Works Ltd v Hoima Municipal Local Government Council (CAD ARB 63 of 2017) [2018] UGCADER 4 (16 March 2018)
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.