UGANDA Law and Practice Contributed by: Moses J. Adriko SC, Ernest Sembatya Kaggwa, Derrick Kizito Kunyiga and Philip E. Nsaja, MMAKS Advocates
• within 30 days of a tribunal ruling on jurisdiction as a preliminary question; or • after the award, by a setting-aside application under Section 34 of the ACA (within one month of receipt of the award) or by resisting recognition and enforcement. Participation in the proceedings without timely objec - tion risks waiver under Section 4. 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility On the gateways described in 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention , questions regarding the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, or the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement, are decided by the court for itself, effectively de novo, since the ACA directs the court to “decide the matter”. By contrast, questions regarding admissibility (such as compli - ance with pre-arbitration procedural steps or time bars within the agreement) are treated as matters for the tribunal, and the court will not review the tribunal’s determinations on them. The merits of the dispute are never reviewed under a jurisdictional guise. 5.5 Breach of Arbitration Agreement The courts are willing, indeed obliged, to hold parties to their bargain. Under Section 5 of the ACA, where proceedings are brought in a matter subject to an arbi - tration agreement, the judge or magistrate must, on a party’s application and after hearing the parties, refer the matter back to arbitration unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being per - formed, or there is in fact no dispute. The language is mandatory, and the courts have long applied it robust - ly ( East African Development Bank v Ziwa Horticultural Exporters Ltd ). Notably, the ACA expressly provides that arbitral proceedings may be commenced or con - tinued, and an award made, even while such a court application is pending, which deprives tactical court
ed that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound by an arbitration agreement under the following doctrines: • under the “group of companies” doctrine; • piercing of the corporate veil; and • implied consent through active participation in the proceedings.
6. Preliminary and Interim Relief 6.1 Types of Relief
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at a party’s request, order a party to take such interim measures of protection as the tribunal considers necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, and may require appropriate security in connection with such a measure (Section 17 of the ACA). Such orders are binding on the parties as a mat - ter of their agreement to arbitrate. Typical measures include the preservation, custody or sale of goods, preservation of the status quo, and orders restraining dissipation of assets. Reflecting its Model Law origins, however, the ACA contains no express mechanism for court enforcement of tribunal-ordered interim meas - ures, a gap widely identified as the priority for legisla - tive reform (see 2.2 Changes to National Law ). 6.2 Role of Courts Under Section 6 of the ACA, a party may apply to the court before or during arbitral proceedings for an interim measure of protection, and such an application is not incompatible with the arbitration agreement. The courts can grant injunctions, orders preserving property or evidence, freezing-type relief and security. Where the arbitral tribunal has already ruled on a mat - ter relevant to the application, the court must treat that ruling, and any findings of fact within it, as conclusive. The power to grant interim relief under Section 6 of the ACA extends to foreign-seated arbitration as well. The High Court, in Great Lakes Energy Company NV v MSS Xsabo Power Limited and 2 Others , Miscellane - ous Application No 1041 of 2023, decided that par - ties to an international arbitration agreement may in exceptional circumstances seek interim measures of protection from national courts without thereby either
filings of much of their disruptive effect. 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties
The High Court Commercial Division has, in its deci - sions in Kom Consults Limited v M / s Nambale Enter- prises Ltd & Anor , Miscellaneous Application No 1144 of 2025, and Kibo Media Limited v Nile Breweries Lim- ited , Miscellaneous Application No 1931 of 2025, stat -
1071 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook