Wakilii

Twinomujuni v Trust Hands of Hope Limited (Miscellaneous Application 97 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 38 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside arbitral award under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arising from Arbitration 005-KTA-2022-ADR originating from Civil Suit No. 485 of 2020
Decision
The arbitral award dated 21 December 2023 is upheld and ordered to be registered and enforced. The arbitrator's ruling of 3 April 2024 correcting arithmetic errors is set aside.

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 partially granted the application to set aside an arbitral award, finding that the Respondent's request for correction of arithmetic errors was filed 5 days out of time and that the arbitrator decided the correction 77 days beyond the statutory limit. The Court further held that the Applicant was not given proper notice of the correction hearing, as neither WhatsApp service nor slipping a notice through a gate constitutes effective service. However, the Court found no evident partiality in the arbitrator and declined to interfere with the substantive award dated 21 December 2023, ordering its registration and enforcement.

Outcome

The arbitral award dated 21 December 2023 is upheld and ordered to be registered and enforced. The arbitrator's ruling of 3 April 2024 correcting arithmetic errors is set aside.

Facts

The Applicant obtained two friendly loans from the Respondent in 2018 and 2019, secured by his matrimonial property, totalling UGX 50,000,000. In June 2019, the parties consolidated these loans with a new truck loan into a single loan of UGX 274,000,000. The truck was registered in the Respondent's name. The Applicant paid UGX 17,867,700 towards the loan. After three months, the Respondent recalled and repossessed the truck, subsequently selling it for UGX 160,000,000. The Applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 485 of 2020 for breach of contract, which was sent to arbitration. On 21 December 2023, the arbitrator delivered an award reducing the Respondent's claim from UGX 439,920,000 to UGX 74,200,000. In January 2024, the Respondent requested correction of arithmetic errors in the award. On 3 April 2024, the arbitrator issued a revised ruling adjusting the award figures. The Applicant then filed this application to set aside both the award and the correction ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's request for correction of the arbitral award was filed within the prescribed time.
  2. Whether the Respondent's request for correction of the arbitral award was handled by the arbitrator within the prescribed time.
  3. Whether the Applicant was given proper notice of all the proceedings in Arbitration 005-KTA-2022-ADR.
  4. Whether there was evident partiality in the arbitrator.
  5. What reliefs are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Court does not see any reason to interrupt the proceedings leading up to the delivery of the award on 21st December 2023.
  • The Court will also not interrupt the award of 21st December 2023.
  • The ruling delivered by the arbitrator on 3rd April 2024 as regards correction of errors in the award is set aside.
  • The Court will register and enforce a duly signed copy of the arbitral award in Arbitration 005-KTA-2022-ADR dated 21st December 2023.
  • The Applicant is awarded one half of the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Correction of Arbitral Awards — Time Limits — Section 33 Arbitration and Conciliation Act
A request for correction of computational errors, clerical or typographical errors in an arbitral award must be made within 14 days after receipt of the award unless the parties agree otherwise, and the arbitral tribunal must decide the request within 14 days of receiving it, with a maximum extension of 14 days.
Correction of Awards — Effect of Non-Compliance with Statutory Timelines
Where a request for correction of an arbitral award is filed 5 days out of time and the arbitrator delivers a ruling on the correction 91 days after the request (77 days beyond the statutory maximum), the correction ruling is void and must be set aside, but this defect does not invalidate the underlying arbitral award.
Service of Process — Effective Service — Electronic Service and Service at Residence
Service of a hearing notice via WhatsApp without acknowledgment of receipt by the recipient does not constitute effective service. Similarly, slipping a notice through the gate of a party's home, without actual delivery to an adult person residing with that party, does not amount to effective service under Order 5 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Notice of Arbitral Proceedings — Sufficient Advance Notice Requirement
Under Section 24(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, parties in arbitration must be given sufficient advance notice of any hearing or meeting. Where a party's former lawyers acknowledge receipt of a hearing notice but immediately clarify they no longer have instructions to represent the party, and attempts at personal service are ineffective, the party has not been given sufficient advance notice.
Evident Partiality — Standard of Proof — Section 34(2) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Evident partiality in an arbitrator must be direct, definite, and capable of demonstration, not remote, uncertain, or speculative. There must be an actual, discernible inclination to favour one party or a predisposition to a particular point of view that might affect the result. Merely losing the case in arbitration does not constitute evident partiality.
Arbitrator's Fees — Payment by One Party Where Other Party Defaults
Under Section 31(9)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, while each party is ordinarily responsible for an equal share of the arbitrator's fees, there is nothing improper about an arbitrator accepting payment of the entire fee from one party where the other party refuses or fails to pay their portion. Allowing such payment does not demonstrate evident partiality.
Court Review of Arbitral Awards — Limited Scope — Legality not Merits
A court reviewing an arbitral award does not function as an appellate court but merely decides upon the legality of the award. The court should not concern itself with the merits of the determination. If the arbitrator has acted within jurisdiction, the legal and factual findings are final, even if the court might have decided the merits differently.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (5)

  • Roko Construction Ltd v Kobusingye Janet (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 0022 of 2021)
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Anor v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Easy Coach Ltd v International Holdings Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2430 of 2023)
  • Pan Afric Impex (U) Ltd v Roko Construction Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 487 of 2010)
  • Russel on Arbitration (22nd Edition) by David St. John Sutton and Judith Gill

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twinomujuni v Trust Hands of Hope Limited (Miscellaneous Application 97 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 38 (27 March 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.