[2007] UGHC 31

[2007] UGHC 31

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of interim measures under Section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The contracts between the parties contained arbitration clauses, and the applicant had sought to enforce its rights to retrieve its property after the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] UGHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Roko Construction Ltd; Respondent: Aya Bakery (U) Ltd; Respondent: Mohamed Mohamed Hamid
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
3 October 2007
Case Number
Misc. Cause No. 138 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Consolidated Applications for Interim Measures
Outcome
applications granted
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreements, Interim Measures, Contract Breach, Lien on Property
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Agreements Interim Measures Contract Breach Lien on Property

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roko Construction Ltd

Applicant

Aya Bakery (U) Ltd

Respondent

Mohamed Mohamed Hamid

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Consolidated Applications for Interim Measures

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim measures for the release of its materials, equipment, and plant from the respondents' premises pending arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have any legal right of lien over the applicant's property after termination of the contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of interim measures under Section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The contracts between the parties contained arbitration clauses, and the applicant had sought to enforce its rights to retrieve its property after the respondents defaulted and the contracts were terminated. The respondents failed to respond to the arbitration notice or the court's summons and did not appear to assert any legal right of lien over the applicant's property. The court held that there was no legal or factual basis for the respondents to withhold the applicant's materials, equipment, and plant. Accordingly, the court...

Court Disposition

applications granted

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to release the applicant's materials, equipment, and plant forthwith.
  • The respondents shall pay the costs of the applications.