Roofclad Ltd v Salzgitter Mannesmann International (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the application to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that it was filed outside the one-month statutory time limit prescribed by Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The court held that receipt of an arbitral award occurs on the date the award is delivered, not when it is physically handed to the parties. Since the award was delivered on 18 December 2014 and the application filed on 11 February 2015, the application was 53 days late and therefore a nullity.

Outcome

Application to set aside arbitral award dismissed as time barred. Related enforcement application struck out.

Facts

In 2011, the respondent, a German company, supplied steel products worth USD 636,684.30 to Steel Rolling Mills Ltd, a Uganda-based company and sister company to the applicant Roofclad Limited. Steel Rolling Mills failed to pay. In March 2013, both companies executed a Settlement Agreement accepting joint and several liability to the respondent, with Roofclad undertaking to guarantee payment. Only one installment of USD 50,000 was paid. The respondent commenced ICC arbitration in Zurich as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The arbitrator rendered an award on 18 December 2014 finding Roofclad liable for the principal debt, interest, and costs. Roofclad filed an application to set aside the award on 11 February 2015, 53 days after the award was delivered. The respondent filed a separate application to enforce the award. By consent order dated 18 May 2016, both applications were consolidated.

Issues

1. Whether the application to set aside the arbitral award is time barred under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
2. Whether the arbitrator erred in law when she held that the applicant was liable as a guarantor for the debt of Steel Rolling Mills Ltd in the absence of a legally binding contract.
3. Whether the arbitrator erred in law when she held that the applicant was liable to pay the debt owing to the respondent and exonerated the principal debtor.
4. Whether the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of Uganda having been determined based on the provisions of the repealed Companies Act Cap 110.
5. Whether the Settlement Agreement was validly executed and if so, whether the applicant had lawful authority to guarantee the debt of Steel Rolling Mills.

Orders

• Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2015 is dismissed with costs.
• Miscellaneous Cause No. 34 of 2015 is struck out.
• No order as to costs in Miscellaneous Cause No. 34 of 2015.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Arbitration & Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.34(2)(b)
• Arbitration & Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.34(3)
• Arbitration & Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.31(8)
• Arbitration & Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.33
• Arbitration Rules r.7(1)
• Arbitration Rules r.11
• Companies Act 2012 s.55
• Civil Procedure Rules s.98
• Companies Act Cap 110

Cases cited (2)

• Roko Construction Ltd v Mohammed Mohammed Hamid (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2011)
• Fountain Publishers v Harriet Nantamu and Another (HCT 135 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Democratic Governance Facility v Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (Civil Application 7 of 2023) not followed
• Pearl Marina Estates Limited v Roko Construction Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 66 of 2023) not followed

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