[1998] UGCA 12

[1998] UGCA 12

The Court of Appeal held that compound interest was not implicit in the arbitration award, as there was no express agreement or custom between the parties to allow it, nor was the relationship that of banker and customer. The award and pleadings were silent on compound interest, and the subsequent interpretation by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] UGCA 12
Parties
Appellant: Kanoblic Group of Companies (U) Ltd; Respondent: Sugar Corporation Uganda Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No 34 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Enforcement, Interest on Judgment Debt, Compound Vs Simple Interest, Garnishee Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Award Enforcement Interest on Judgment Debt Compound Vs Simple Interest Garnishee Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanoblic Group of Companies (U) Ltd

Appellant

Sugar Corporation Uganda Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether compound interest was implicit or expressly awarded in the arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to compound interest or only simple interest under the award and applicable law.
  3. 3 Whether the order for refund of excess payment to the respondent was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that compound interest was not implicit in the arbitration award, as there was no express agreement or custom between the parties to allow it, nor was the relationship that of banker and customer. The award and pleadings were silent on compound interest, and the subsequent interpretation by counsel could not lawfully alter the terms of the award. The Registrar's certificate awarding compound interest was set aside as unlawful. The court found that only simple interest at 30% per annum was applicable, and recalculated the sums due, determining that the appellant had overpaid and was entitled to a refund of the excess. The order for refund of Shs. 8,403,193/= was...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Interest awarded is simple, not compound.
  • Order for appellant to refund Shs. 8,403,193/= to respondent is set aside.