Wakilii

Zhonghao Overseas Construction Engineering Co. Limited v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1955 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 125 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for appointment of arbitrator, interim protective orders, and mandamus arising from judgment on admission in High Court Civil Suit No. 553 of 2021
Decision
Application partly allowed. ICAMEK appointed to assign arbitrator. Interim protective orders and mandamus denied. Matter to proceed to arbitration.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Where parties agreed to arbitrate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2000 but CADER lacked a governing council to appoint an arbitrator, the court appointed ICAMEK to assign an arbitrator. Interim protective orders restraining payment to a new contractor were denied where damages would be adequate compensation and the balance of convenience favored completing a public healthcare project. Mandamus was refused where a counterclaim exceeded the judgment debt and the full dispute required determination under arbitration.

Outcome

Application partly allowed. ICAMEK appointed to assign arbitrator. Interim protective orders and mandamus denied. Matter to proceed to arbitration.

Facts

On 8 February 2016 the parties entered a contract for construction of staff houses for health facilities in seven districts at USD 5,592,885.18. The Applicant commenced work but suspended it twice in 2017 due to delayed payments. The Respondent paid USD 1,304,322.18 and later USD 3,207,380.78, leaving USD 4,443,505.25 outstanding. The contract expired in December 2017. The Applicant obtained judgment on admission in HCCS 553/2021 for USD 595,472.13 (IPC No. 6, IPC No. 7, and retention payment). The Respondent re-tendered the unfinished work to a new contractor and counterclaimed USD 660,000 for an unredeemed advance payment. The Applicant applied for appointment of an arbitrator, interim orders restraining payment to the new contractor, and mandamus compelling payment of the judgment debt.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should appoint an arbitrator/adjudicator
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an interim protective order compelling the Respondents to stop payment of the new contractor
  3. Whether a writ of a prerogative of Mandamus should be issued against the Respondent to compel the Attorney General and the Treasury Officer Accounts to carry out the statutory duty to pay the Applicant what was ordered in the Judgment on admission issued in H.C.C.S No. 553 of 2021
  4. Whether the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents should be summoned to the High Court for defying the Orders on admission issued in H.C.C.S No. 553 of 2021
  5. Whether the Respondents should appear in this court and show cause why they should not pay to the Applicant what was ordered in H.C.C.S No. 553 of 2021
  6. Whether the Applicant is entitled to exemplary/aggravated and general damages for contempt of court
  7. Whether an order of attachment of the money held in various accounts in Vote 014 held by the Secretary to the Treasury/treasury officer Accounts Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development can be issued

Orders

  • The application for interim protection orders is dismissed.
  • The International Centre of Arbitration & Mediation in Kampala (ICAMEK) is hereby appointed to assign an arbitrator to handle the dispute.
  • Each party shall bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Appointment of Arbitrator — Arbitration Centre Without Governing Council
Where parties agreed to arbitrate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2000 which would by default vest the appointment power in CADER, but CADER has no governing council to effect the appointment, the court may appoint an alternative arbitration centre to assign an arbitrator in order to give effect to the parties' intention to arbitrate and avoid delay.
Interim Measures — Irreparable Injury Test
An interim protective order will not be granted under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act where the injury the applicant would suffer can be adequately compensated in damages and the applicant has not shown that the respondent would be unable to pay such damages.
Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Public Interest Projects
The balance of convenience tilts against granting an injunction to halt a government project for construction of health facilities where such an order would not be in the public interest and could expose the government to claims for breach of contract by the current contractor.
Mandamus — Refusal Where Counterclaim Exceeds Judgment Debt
Where an applicant seeks mandamus to compel payment of a judgment debt but the respondent has a counterclaim that exceeds the judgment amount and the validity of that counterclaim is an issue to be determined under arbitration, mandamus will be denied in the interest of allowing the entire dispute to be determined first.
Arbitration Agreements — Rigorous Enforcement of Contractual Terms
Arbitration is a creature of contract and courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms that specify the rules under which arbitration will be conducted.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 23 Rules 1 and 10
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.6(1)
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.7(2)
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap.4 s.68
  • Arbitration Rules Rule 13
  • Government Proceedings Act Cap.77 s.19(4)
  • Government Proceedings Act Cap.77 s.21
  • Government Proceedings (Civil Procedure Rules) SI 77-1 Rule 16
  • Government Proceedings (Civil Procedure Rules) SI 77-1 Rule 16(1)
  • Evidence (Bankers Book) Act Cap.7 s.6(1)
  • Evidence (Bankers Book) Act Cap.7 s.6(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
  • Judicature Act Cap.13 s.37(1)
  • Judicature Act Cap.13 s.37(2)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 Rule 3

Cases cited (18)

  • Kiyimba-Kaggwa v Haji Nassar Katende (1988) HCB 43
  • CADER & Jimmy Mayanja v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 2011)
  • TMA Architects and Urban Designers (U) Ltd & Ano. v Prome Consultants (Miscellaneous Cause 80 of 2023)
  • International Development Consultants Ltd v Jimmy Muyanja and Others (Misc. 133 of 2018)
  • Ambitious Construction Company Limited v Uganda National Cultural Centre (Miscellaneous Application No. 441 of 2020)
  • John Sekaziga & Another v Church Commissioners Holding (Misc. Cause No. 15 of 2013)
  • International Investment House Company LLC & Emirates Africa Link for Strategic Alliance (LLC) v Amos Nzeyi and Others (Misc. Cause No. 11 of 2012)
  • Multiplex Limited v Detach Uluslararasi Ticaret VE Muteahhit Lik Limited Sirketi (Misc. Cause 78 of 2022)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
  • GAPCO Uganda Limited v Kaweesa and Another (H.C. Misc Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Swabri Ali Abubaker Mukungu v Kobil Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 41 of 2015)
  • BABS Security Limited v Geothermal Development Limited [2014] eKLR
  • American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] 2 WLR 316
  • Despina Pontikos [1975] EA 38
  • Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v AG (Civil Application No. 56 of 2023)
  • Uganda National Bureau of Standards v Ran Publishers Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 635 of 2019)
  • Shah v Attorney General [1970] EA 543
  • Nabuwati & 2 Others v The Secretary to the Treasury & Another (Misc. Application No. 2613 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Zhonghao Overseas Construction Engineering Co. Limited v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1955 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 125 (29 November 2023)
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.