[2018] UGCommC 1

[2018] UGCommC 1

The court held that the application was, in substance and form, an appeal against the arbitral award, which is not permitted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Act only allows for an application to set aside an award on specific grounds, not an appeal. Furthermore, the application was filed outside the statutory one-month period prescribed by section 34(3) of the Act, and the court has no jurisdiction to extend this period. The attempt to refile the same application under a different heading did not cure the defect of lateness or change its character as an appeal. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, and it was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] UGCommC 1
Parties
Applicant: Infinity Telecom Uganda Limited; Applicant: Kinetic Telecom Limited; Applicant: Mukama Atukwase Enterprises; Respondent: Orange Uganda Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
9 January 2018
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Arbitral Awards, Setting Aside Award, Jurisdiction of High Court, Limitation Periods, Dealer Agreements
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Arbitral Awards Setting Aside Award Jurisdiction of High Court Limitation Periods Dealer Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Infinity Telecom Uganda Limited

Applicant

Kinetic Telecom Limited

Applicant

Mukama Atukwase Enterprises

Applicant

Orange Uganda Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an arbitral award.
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside the arbitral award was filed within the time prescribed by law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to have the arbitral award set aside or varied on grounds of illegality or improper evaluation of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application was, in substance and form, an appeal against the arbitral award, which is not permitted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Act only allows for an application to set aside an award on specific grounds, not an appeal. Furthermore, the application was filed outside the statutory one-month period prescribed by section 34(3) of the Act, and the court has no jurisdiction to extend this period. The attempt to refile the same application under a different heading did not cure the defect of lateness or change its character as an appeal. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, and it was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside or vary the arbitral award is dismissed.
  • The applicants shall pay the costs of this application to the respondent.