At the webinar on Construction Law that was organized by Uganda Christian Lawyers Fraternity, I unpacked several Court decisions in relation to Construction Arbitration in Uganda.
Key to note from the decisions is that:
1. The Courts continue to recognize the finality of Arbitration; only interfering and setting aside awards in very limited circumstances.
2. The circumstances under which Courts have set aside the awards include the awards being contrary to public policy for example; an arbitrator framing his own issues and not giving the parties a chance to submit on the same.
3. It must be explicit that the parties intended to Arbitrate. In the event that a clause is not clear and the parties’ conduct does not point to an intention to Arbitration, then the Courts are inclined to find that the parties did not intend to Arbitrate and will thus have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
4. In the event that a clause is not clear but the parties’ conduct is not contrary to the intention to Arbitrate, then the clause shall be interpreted in favour of Arbitration and the dispute referred to Arbitration.
5. Interim Measures of Protection are not as a matter of course. Parties must meet the requirements. For example; if a party seeks an Interim Measure of Protection in the form of a temporary injunction restraining the call on an unconditional bond or guarantee, they must satisfy the test/requirements as set by Court.
In conclusion, Arbitration continues to be the preferred and efficient final course of dispute resolution in respect to disputes arising from construction projects.
