Wakilii

Quality Uganda Limited v Bata Shoe Company (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 390 · 2025 Application Granted — Award Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitral award arising from Arbitration Cause No. ICAMEK/REQ/2025/010
Decision
Arbitral award set aside; application granted

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 set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the unilateral appointment of an emergency arbitrator by ICAMEK without the applicant's participation violated the tenancy agreement's arbitration clause and Section 11(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court held that where parties agree to appoint a single arbitrator consensually, one party cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator through an appointing authority without the other party's input, rendering the arbitrator's appointment and subsequent award void ab initio.

Outcome

Arbitral award set aside; application granted

Facts

On 4th August 2023, Quality Uganda Limited (landlord) and Bata Shoe Company (U) Ltd (tenant) entered into a three-year tenancy agreement for premises at Quality Shopping Village, Naalya. Clause 12 provided that disputes would be referred to a single arbitrator appointed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The landlord terminated the tenancy on 15th April 2025. The tenant initiated arbitration through ICAMEK on 23rd April 2025. On 28th April 2025, ICAMEK unilaterally appointed Mr. Ssekabanja Isaac as emergency arbitrator under ICAMEK Rules. The landlord refused to participate, stating it had not agreed to ICAMEK Rules or the arbitrator's appointment. The arbitrator proceeded and delivered a final award on 13th May 2025. The landlord applied to set aside the award, arguing the arbitrator was improperly appointed without its consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the Arbitral Award vide Arbitration Cause No. ICAMEK/REQ/2025/010 dated 13th May, 2025, should be set aside?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Arbitral Award delivered by the emergency arbitrator in Arbitration Cause No. ICAMEK/REQ/2025/010 dated 13th May, 2025, is hereby set aside.
  • Each party shall meet its costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Composition of Arbitral Tribunal — Appointment of Arbitrator — Requirement for Consensual Appointment
Where parties agree in their arbitration clause that a single arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 11(2)(b) requires that the parties shall agree on the person to be appointed as arbitrator. A unilateral appointment by one party through an appointing authority without the other party's participation or consent violates this requirement and renders the arbitrator's appointment void ab initio.
Arbitration & ADR — Setting Aside Awards — Improper Composition of Tribunal — Jurisdictional Defect
An arbitrator appointed in contravention of the parties' agreement on the mode of appointment acts without jurisdiction. All subsequent actions by such an arbitrator, including the delivery of a final award, are void ab initio and the award is unenforceable under Section 34(2)(a)(v) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Arbitration & ADR — Party Autonomy — Limits on Appointing Authority Powers
The authority and jurisdiction of arbitrators depend upon the autonomy of the parties and the laws governing arbitration. Where parties have agreed to a consensual arbitrator, there is no basis to oblige the other party to participate in an arbitration convened unilaterally, even where an appointing authority designated under the Act is involved.
Arbitration & ADR — Jurisdictional Objections — Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction
While a party with preliminary objections regarding arbitration proceedings is generally barred from raising them if they did not participate and raise them before the arbitrator, this bar does not apply to objections based upon any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the arbitrator.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Submissions Filed Out of Time
Where written submissions are filed out of time but the opposing party has not been prejudiced and has filed its own submissions in reply within the specified time, the court may invoke Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to allow the late submissions in the interest of substantive justice.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (11)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza Jonathan and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Uganda Civil Aviation Authority v Central Plumbing Works (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2023)
  • Suryadeep Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs NM Construction Comm, Arbitration Petition No. 210 of 2024
  • Lakeside Dairy Limited v ICAMEK & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 21 of 2021)
  • Uganda Development Corporation v Rocktrust Contractors Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 85 of 2019)
  • Labx Scientific Ltd v Katakwi District Local Government and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2025)
  • Welhai International Economy and Technical Cooperative Company Ltd v Hansa Engineering Services Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 03 of 2020)
  • Smile Communications Uganda Limited Vs ATC Uganda Limited & Another

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Quality Uganda Limited v Bata Shoe Company (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 390 (23 October 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.