[2018] UGCommC 47

[2018] UGCommC 47

The respondent was ordered by court to deposit security for performance of the arbitral award but failed to comply within the stipulated time. The court found that deliberate non-compliance with its order was disrespectful and undermined judicial authority. Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Rule 12 of the Arbitration Rules empower the court to order security for performance, and the principles applicable to security for costs under Order 26 rule 2(1) CPR are relevant. The court held that failure to provide security as ordered warrants dismissal of the application to set aside the award. The respondent's arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction and harshness of the...

Citation
[2018] UGCommC 47
Parties
Applicant: Excel Construction Limited; Respondent: GCC Service Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 1245 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_granted
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award Enforcement, Security for Performance, Court Jurisdiction Under Aca, Contempt of Court Orders
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Arbitral Award Enforcement Security for Performance Court Jurisdiction Under Aca Contempt of Court Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Excel Construction Limited

Applicant

GCC Service Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Misc Cause No. 23 of 2017 should be struck out and dismissed for failure to provide security for performance of the arbitral award.
  2. 2 Whether failure to deposit security for performance of the award amounts to contempt of court and warrants dismissal of the application to set aside the award.
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to dismiss the application for non-compliance with the order to provide security.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was ordered by court to deposit security for performance of the arbitral award but failed to comply within the stipulated time. The court found that deliberate non-compliance with its order was disrespectful and undermined judicial authority. Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Rule 12 of the Arbitration Rules empower the court to order security for performance, and the principles applicable to security for costs under Order 26 rule 2(1) CPR are relevant. The court held that failure to provide security as ordered warrants dismissal of the application to set aside the award. The respondent's arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction and harshness of the...

Court Disposition

application_granted

Orders

  • Misc Cause No. 23 of 2017 is struck out and dismissed for failure to provide security for performance of the arbitral award.
  • The respondent shall pay costs of this application.