[2016] UGCommC 80
The court found that the respondent, despite being a foreign company, demonstrated sufficient assets within Uganda, including vehicles and construction equipment registered in its name. The court was persuaded that the respondent had no intention of leaving the jurisdiction and possessed the capacity to meet any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] UGCommC 80
- Parties
- Applicant: Kibibu Engineering Co. Ltd; Respondent: Kolin Insaat Turizim Sanayi Ticaret
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 330 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Payment Pending Arbitration Award Enforcement
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Arbitration Award Enforcement, Security for Costs, Foreign Parties, Jurisdiction of Assets
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kibibu Engineering Co. Ltd
Applicant
Kolin Insaat Turizim Sanayi Ticaret
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Payment Pending Arbitration Award Enforcement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent, as a foreign company, should be ordered to provide security for payment of the arbitral award and costs.
- 2 Whether the respondent has sufficient assets within the jurisdiction to satisfy the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent, despite being a foreign company, demonstrated sufficient assets within Uganda, including vehicles and construction equipment registered in its name. The court was persuaded that the respondent had no intention of leaving the jurisdiction and possessed the capacity to meet any obligations arising from the arbitral award. Therefore, it was not proper to order the respondent to provide security for payment, and the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for security for payment is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 330 OF 2016**
*[Arising out of Misc. cause No. 4 of 2016]*
*[ARISING OUT OF CADER/ARBITRATION No. 16 OF 2016]*
*[ARISING OUT OF H. C. C. C No. 172 OF 2013]*
**KIBIBU ENGINEERING CO. LTD ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**
**VERSUS**
**KOLIN INSAAT TURIZIM SANAYI TICARET ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**
**BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE B. KAINAMURA**
**RULING**
This is an application by Ms. Kabibu Engineering Co. Ltd under S. 34 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the applicant. In Misc Cause No. 4 of 2016 M/s Kolen Insaat Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret to provide security for the payment of the decree in CADER/Arbitration No. 16 of 2016 and costs likely in opposing Misc Cause No. 4 of 2016.
It is contended by the applicant in this application that the respondent is a foreign company with no known assets is Uganda to which the applicant can have resort to, to recover the decretal award and costs.
In reply the respondent maintains it has capacity to satisfy the decree that has been issued against it as it owns sufficient assets in Uganda in form of debt, movable assets like vehicles and construction equipment.
S. 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that if the court considers it proper then it can require a party to provide appropriate security.
In practice courts have exercised the above discretion where the party against whom the application is made ordinary resides outside the jurisdiction and has no substantial property within the jurisdiction. In the instant case Counsel for the respondent supplied to court certified copies of a sizeable number of vehicles and plant registered in the names of the respondent.
In the premis I am persuaded that the respondent has no intention of leaving jurisdiction and has sufficient capacity to meet the obligations that may arise if the application to set aside the award was to fail.
Accordingly this application does not succeed and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
**B. Kainamura**
**Judge**
**20.05.2016**