[2005] UGCommC 40

[2005] UGCommC 40

The court found that the arbitrator exhibited evident partiality by failing to scrutinize the respondent's claim for special damages with the same rigor applied to the applicant's counterclaim. The arbitrator accepted the respondent's evidence without adequate questioning or assessment, while subjecting the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGCommC 40
Parties
Applicant: Kilembe Mines Limited; Respondent: B. M. Steel Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MC 2 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
application granted; arbitral award set aside
Legal Topics
Arbitration Awards, Setting Aside Award, Evident Partiality, Presentation of Case, Damages Assessment
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Awards Setting Aside Award Evident Partiality Presentation of Case Damages Assessment

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

Kilembe Mines Limited

Applicant

B. M. Steel Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside for evident partiality by the arbitrator.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was prevented from fully presenting its case before the arbitrator.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitral procedure violated the parties' agreement regarding conciliation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator exhibited evident partiality by failing to scrutinize the respondent's claim for special damages with the same rigor applied to the applicant's counterclaim. The arbitrator accepted the respondent's evidence without adequate questioning or assessment, while subjecting the applicant's claims to detailed analysis and ultimately rejecting them for lack of proof. Additionally, the arbitrator unjustifiably refused to allow the applicant to call key witnesses, including an auditor and an electrical engineer, thereby preventing the applicant from fully presenting its case. These actions amounted to a denial of equality of treatment and reasonable opportunity...

Court Disposition

application granted; arbitral award set aside

Orders

  • The arbitral award dated 13th December 2004 is set aside.
  • Costs of this application and before the arbitral tribunal are awarded to the applicant.