UGANDA Law and Practice Contributed by: Moses J. Adriko SC, Ernest Sembatya Kaggwa, Derrick Kizito Kunyiga and Philip E. Nsaja, MMAKS Advocates
agrees, the appointing authority decides the chal - lenge within 30 days from the date of receipt of the challenge. Under Section 14, an arbitrator’s mandate terminates where they become de jure or de facto unable to perform their functions or where they fail to act or act with undue delay. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements Section 12 (1) and (2) of the ACA imposes a continuing duty of disclosure: from first approach and through - out the proceedings, an arbitrator must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. Recent case law applies these duties strictly: • In China Railway 18th Bureau ( Group ) Co . Ltd v Tumo Technical Services Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No 72 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 393 (23 October 2025), the High Court held that an arbitra - tor has an absolute, continuing duty to disclose any past, present or prospective relationship, pro - fessional connection or financial interest involving the parties, their counsel or the subject matter. • In Kenlloyd Logistics ( U ) Ltd v Fratch AG (Miscel - laneous Cause No 78 of 2023), an award was set aside where the arbitrator’s conduct raised a rea - sonable suspicion of partiality – actual bias need not be proved; an appearance of bias suffices. Under the ICAMEK Arbitration Rules, prospective arbitrators must sign statements of independence and impartiality, and the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration are routinely used as persuasive guidance.
Architects v Prome Consultants , Miscellaneous Cause No 80 of 2023 [2023] UGCommC 44, the Commercial Division held that the tribunal rules first on its own jurisdiction and that a court should so far as possible avoid anticipating that decision. 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention The courts show a pronounced reluctance to inter - vene, anchored in Section 9 of the ACA, and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that no appeal lies against interlocutory court orders in arbitration proceedings unless expressly provided by law ( Simba Properties Investment Co Ltd v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Part- nership , Civil Application No 1295 of 2023). In relation to issues of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribu - nal, the courts address the tribunal’s jurisdiction only through the ACA’s defined gateways: • on an application under Section 5 to refer court proceedings to arbitration, where the court consid - ers whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of performance; • where the tribunal rules on jurisdiction as a prelimi - nary question, a party may apply to the High Court within 30 days to decide the matter; the court’s decision is final and not subject to appeal, and the arbitration may continue in the meantime; • after the award, on a setting-aside application under Section 34 (invalid agreement, excess of scope); or • at the recognition and enforcement stage under Sections 35 and 36. The ACA makes no express provision for judicial review of negative jurisdictional rulings, and the point remains largely untested; a claimant’s practical rem - edy is to commence fresh proceedings in the appro - priate forum. 5.3 Timing of Challenge A jurisdictional objection must first be raised before the arbitral tribunal itself, not later than the submission of the statement of defence (or, for excess-of-scope objections, as soon as the matter allegedly beyond the tribunal’s authority is raised). A party cannot go to court merely because a case has been filed. Court recourse arises only:
5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction
Section 16 of the ACA codifies the principle of compe - tence-competence: the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections to the exist - ence or validity of the arbitration agreement, either as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits. This is reinforced by the separability rule in Section 16 (1) (see 3.4 Validity ) and by Section 5, under which the merits of jurisdictional objections are, in the first instance, for the tribunal rather than the court. In TMA
1070 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook