Wakilii

Roko Constructions Ltd v Mohammed Mohammedi (Civil Appeal No.0051 of 2011)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 180 · 2015 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from High Court ruling setting aside an arbitral award
Decision
High Court decision quashed and arbitral award reinstated

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that although only the bill of quantities was formally signed, the building contract containing the arbitration clause bound both parties because they had acted on it and treated it as binding under the doctrine of part performance. The arbitral tribunal therefore had jurisdiction. The respondent's application to challenge jurisdiction was not made within 30 days under section 16(6), and his application to set aside the award was filed out of time under section 34(3), rendering it incompetent. The appeal was competent under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act. The High Court decision was quashed and the arbitral award reinstated.

Outcome

High Court decision quashed and arbitral award reinstated

Facts

The appellant construction company entered into a construction contract with the respondent on 15 July 2005 to build a residential house at Plot 43, Windsor Close, Kololo, Kampala, for shs1,100,000,000 excluding VAT. A standard building agreement based on the East African Institute of Architects form was prepared, and both parties signed the bill of quantities. The respondent denied signing the main building agreement but paid part of the contract sum, after which the appellant commenced work and performed substantial construction. The respondent repeatedly defaulted in payment, and the appellant terminated the contract on 16 July 2007 and referred the dispute to arbitration. CADER appointed Justice Karokora as arbitrator, who awarded the appellant shs584,430,571 plus general damages of shs100,000,000 with interest. The respondent applied to the High Court to set aside the award, contending there was no concluded arbitration agreement and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the award, holding the arbitration clause had been excluded. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the building contract containing the arbitration clause was validly executed and binding on the parties despite only the bill of quantities being formally signed.
  2. Whether the arbitration clause required a written agreement signed by both parties for the arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the respondent's application to set aside the arbitral award was time barred under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  4. Whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal was competent and properly before the Court.

Orders

  • The decision of the High Court is quashed.
  • The Arbitral award in CAD/ARB No. 11 of 2007 delivered on 30/06/2009 is reinstated.
  • The appeal succeeds with costs to the appellant in the Court of Appeal, the High Court and before the Arbitrator.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Part Performance Curing Want of Formal Execution
Where a party has acted on and treated an unsigned draft contract as binding, the want of formal execution is cured by part performance, and the party is bound by the contract including its arbitration clause.
Arbitration & ADR — Jurisdiction — Challenge to Tribunal's Preliminary Ruling
A party aggrieved by an arbitral tribunal's preliminary ruling that it has jurisdiction must apply to the High Court within 30 days under section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; failure to do so within that period bars the challenge.
Arbitration & ADR — Setting Aside Award — Time Limitation
An application to set aside an arbitral award under section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act may not be made after one month from the date the applicant received the award; where the award was delivered in the presence of the party's counsel, that party had notice and time runs from delivery.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Appeals from Orders Made Under Statutes Other Than the CPA
An order of the High Court made on a matter brought before it under a statute other than the Civil Procedure Act, such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is appealable as of right under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the appeal is specifically excluded by law.
Civil Procedure — First Appeal — Duty of First Appellate Court
A first appellate court has a duty to re-appraise the evidence on record and draw its own inferences of fact, making due allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • National Social Security Fund and Another v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2008)
  • Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 666
  • Credit Finance Corp. Ltd. (Supra)
  • Denis Bireije v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 31 of 2005)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Roko Constructions Ltd Vs Mohammed Mohammedi (Civil Appeal No.0051 of 2011) [2015] UGCA 180 (13 July 2015)
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.