
- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- UGANDA 2025-2
UGANDA 2025-2
High Court of Uganda, Kampala (Commercial Division), 10 March 2025, Arbitration Causes No. 0038 and 0046 of 2024 (Consolidated)
(Kampala International University v. Housing Finance Company Limited)
... Read moreHigh Court of Uganda, Kampala (Commercial Division), 10 March 2025, Arbitration Causes No. 0038 and 0046 of 2024 (Consolidated)
(Kampala International University v. Housing Finance Company Limited)
101, 401, 500, 501, 502, 503, 515, 516, 518, 524
UGANDA 2025-2
The High Court recognized and enforced a Kenyan award, dismissing the argument that it had merged into Kenyan judgment which had enforced it, explaining that enforcement judgments at the seat of arbitration were simply a condition for the award’s execution there, and that the award remained autonomously enforceable elsewhere.
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the conditions under which an award that has merged into a court judgment in the country of origin can still be enforced as an award under the Convention, and whether a decision granting recognition under the Convention can be enforced as a foreign court judgment in a third country.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.