Wakilii

Total (U) Ltd v Buramba General Agencies (Arbitration Application No. 3 of 1998)

High Court · [1998] UGHC 8 · 1998 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitration award on grounds of alleged arbitrator misconduct and excessive damages
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed an application to set aside an arbitration award. The court held that an arbitrator who initially filed a claim on behalf of one party, but withdrew it at the earliest opportunity before substantive proceedings, did not exhibit misconduct or partiality. The court further held that parties who choose their own tribunal must accept the result, and the quantum of damages awarded was within the arbitrators' discretion, supported by evidence.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Total (Uganda) Ltd and Buramba General Agencies entered into a Transport Agreement under which Buramba transported and distributed Total's petroleum products. Total alleged breach and the parties referred the matter to arbitration by a three-member panel. The arbitrators issued an award on 14 November 1997 in favour of Buramba, ordering Total to pay UGX 60 million as special damages for loss of income and UGX 10 million as general damages. Total applied to set aside the award, alleging that one arbitrator, Mr Kafuko-Ntuyo (appointed by the President of the Uganda Law Society to act for Total), had exhibited bias by filing a statement of claim on behalf of Total before the arbitration panel. Kafuko-Ntuyo withdrew the papers at the first preliminary meeting, and Total's recognised advocate subsequently conducted the arbitration. Total also challenged the quantum of damages as excessive, arguing the computation was based on 32 months instead of 12 months under the yearly contract.

Issues

  1. Whether arbitrator Kafuko-Ntuyo's conduct of the proceedings constituted misconduct by way of partiality or bias
  2. Whether the arbitrators' award of special and general damages against Total was excessive
  3. If the answer to either of the above is in the affirmative, what relief is available to Total

Orders

  • Application to set aside arbitration award dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Buramba General Agencies (the Respondent/Cross Objector)

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitrator Misconduct — Partiality and Bias — Initial Filing of Claim by Party-Appointed Arbitrator
An arbitrator does not commit misconduct by way of partiality where he mistakenly filed a claim on behalf of the party that appointed him, provided he acted honestly without bad faith, fraud, corruption, or improper collusion, and promptly withdrew the papers at the earliest opportunity with full disclosure to his co-arbitrators before any substantive proceedings commenced.
Arbitrator Liability — Honest Exercise of Functions — Absence of Fraud or Collusion
An arbitrator is not liable under a charge of acting without impartiality if he acts honestly, without bad faith, fraud, or collusion, provided there is no dishonesty, ill motive, corruption, or improper pressure in his conduct.
Waiver of Arbitral Irregularities — Acquiescence in Arbitrator's Conduct
Irregularities in the conduct of an arbitration, including alleged partiality, can be waived where the parties proceed with the arbitration with full knowledge of the facts and fail to raise any objection before, during, or after the proceedings, thereby being held to have acquiesced in and waived the alleged misconduct.
Arbitrator Selection — Parties Bound by Their Choice of Tribunal
Where parties to a dispute, with full knowledge of the facts, select an arbitrator who has performed other duties for one party, the court will not in general release them from the bargain upon which they have agreed, and they are estopped from challenging the arbitrator's impartiality at a later stage if they proceeded with the arbitration without objection.
Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards — Limited Scope of Intervention
There is no appeal in the ordinary sense from the award of an arbitrator; parties who choose their own tribunal must generally accept the result whether right or wrong, and the court will intervene only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the arbitrators misconstrued a particular point of law.
Quantum of Damages — Reasonableness of Arbitrators' Assessment
The court will not interfere with an arbitral award on the ground of excessive damages where the arbitrators exercised their discretion rationally and reasonably on the basis of cogent evidence and well-argued submissions, even where the quantum appears large.
Interpretation of Arbitral Awards — Benevolent Approach by Courts
Courts adopt a benevolent attitude to the interpretation of arbitration awards, reading them in a reasonable and commercial way, striving to uphold them rather than to pick inconsistencies and faults with the objective of frustrating the arbitration process.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Arbitration Act (Cap.55) s.12
  • Arbitration Act (Cap.55) s.16
  • Arbitration Act Rules (S.I. No.55-1) r.7
  • Arbitration Act Rules (S.I. No.55-1) r.8
  • Arbitration Act Rules (S.I. No.55-1) r.10
  • Arbitration Act Rules (S.I. No.55-1) r.11
  • Arbitration Act Rules (S.I. No.55-1) r.16

Cases cited (33)

  • Kassamali Co v Kyrtatas [1968] EA 544
  • Assanand & Sons (U) Ltd v E.A. Records [1959] EA 360
  • Caspair Ltd v Harry Grandy [1962] EA 414
  • In re Young Manufacturing [1900] 2 Ch 753
  • Williams v Wallis Courts (1914) 2 KB 485
  • Metropolitan Properties Co Ltd v Lannon & Ors [1969] 1 QB 577
  • Makula v Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) 2 HCB 11
  • Tolputh v Molle (1911) 1 KB 36
  • Rashid Moledina v Hoima Ginners (1967) EA 657
  • Zwanenberg Ltd v McCallum & Sons (1922) 13 Lloyd's Rep 380
  • Chambers v Goldthorpe [1901] 1 KB 624
  • Bsynton v Richardsons [1924] WN 262
  • Weise v Wardle (1874) LR 19 Eq 171
  • Lendon v Keen (1916) 1 KB 994
  • Sutcliffe v Thackrah [1974] AC 727
  • Mosley v Simpson (1893) LR 16 Eq 226
  • Wessanen's Koninklijke Fabrieken NV v Isaac Modiano, Brother & Sons Ltd [1960] Lloyd's Rep 257
  • Re Elliot and South Devon Rly Co (1848) 2 De G & Sm 17
  • Drew v Drew and Le Burn (1855) 2 Macq 1
  • Re Clout and Metropolitan and District Rly Companies (1882) 46 LT 141
  • Biglin v Clark (1945) 49 Sol Jo 204
  • Bunten and Lancaster (Produce) Ltd v Kiril Mischeff Ltd [1964] Lloyd's Rep 386
  • Bright v River Plate Construction Co Ltd [1944] 2 Ch 835
  • M'Dougall v Laird & Sons (1894) 22 R 71
  • Brener Handels Gesellschaft mbH v Ets Soules et Cie [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 199
  • Re Hawkes Bay Electric Power Board and Napier Borough Council [1930] NZLR 162
  • Re Elliot and South Devon Rly (1919) 56 Sc LR 216
  • NIC v Arconsults Architects (1984) 1 KLR 112
  • Zermalt Holdings SA v Nu-life Upholstery Repair Ltd (1985) 275 EG 1134
  • Christopher Brown Ltd v Genossenchaft Oesterreichischer [1954] 1 QB 8
  • James Clark (Brush Materials) Ltd v Carters (Merchants) Ltd [1944] 1 KB 566
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semei Amani Opio (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1993)
  • Montgomery, Jones & Co v Liebenthal & Co (1898) 78 LT 406

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Total (U) Ltd v Buramba General Agencies (Arbitration Application No. 3 of 1998) [1998] UGHC 8 (11 June 1998)
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.