Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to the different ways people can resolve disputes

without a trial. A according to Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition by Bryan A Garner 2009
Alternative dispute resolution or ADR refers to a "procedure for settling a dispute by means
other than litigation, such as arbitration or mediation." Litigation is the most recognized and
established form of dispute resolution system in Uganda and even in the world today. All other
systems have come to assume secondary roles and have become alternatives to the court
system.

An arbitral award is a final and binding decision made by an arbitrator or arbitration tribunal in
a dispute resolution process, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The award is typically issued
after the arbitrator has considered the evidence, arguments, and submissions presented by the
parties involved in the dispute. The arbitral award is a conclusive determination of the rights
and obligations of the parties, and it usually includes specific relief, damages, or other remedies
deemed appropriate by the arbitrator. The award is enforceable by law, and parties are
expected to comply with its terms. Arbitral awards are often preferred for their finality, as they
provide certainty and closure for the parties, allowing them to move forward without
prolonged litigation.

In Uganda, the legal framework governing arbitration emphasizes the finality and enforceability
of arbitral awards. As a key aspect of alternative dispute resolution, arbitral awards are
designed to provide a conclusive resolution to disputes, with courts playing a supportive role in
their recognition and enforcement. This principle is reflected in the mandate that courts must
recognize and enforce arbitral awards without varying them, underscoring the limited scope for
judicial intervention in arbitration outcomes.

Obligation to Recognize and Enforce: Ugandan courts are mandated to recognize and enforce
arbitral awards, treating them as if they were court judgments. This means that once an arbitral
award is made, parties can approach the courts to enforce it, and the courts are obligated to
give effect to the award. Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 5 provides for
recognition and enforcement and states that an arbitral award shall be recognized as binding
and enforced by the court upon written application, subject to specific requirements. The party
relying on the award or seeking enforcement must furnish the duly authenticated original
award or a certified copy, the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and if the
documents are not in English, a duly certified translation into English, unless the court orders
otherwise. The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are crucial in ensuring that the
purpose of arbitration is achieved, which is to provide a final and binding resolution to disputes.
By treating arbitral awards as equivalent to court judgments, Ugandan courts demonstrate their
support for the arbitration process and ensure that parties can rely on arbitration as a means of
resolving their disputes.
Limited Court Intervention: Courts generally refrain from interfering with arbitration matters
and awards unless specific exceptions apply. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Cap 5 provides for non court intervention. This limited intervention is a fundamental principle
of arbitration, as it allows parties to resolve their disputes through a private and efficient
mechanism without unnecessary court oversight. Courts should not interfere with arbitration
proceedings or awards except in specified circumstances, such as setting aside an award or
enforcing an award. By limiting court intervention, arbitration can achieve its objectives of
speed, efficiency, and finality in dispute resolution. This was discussed in Capt. Joseph Charles
Roy V D & D International Ltd Misc. Application No. 283 of 2018.

Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in line with the demand that courts in Uganda
must recognize and enforce arbitral awards as they delivered and cannot vary the award, the
arbitration process itself allows for limited corrections and interpretations of the award. Within
specified timeframes, parties can request the arbitral tribunal to correct errors, provide
interpretations, or make additional awards regarding claims omitted from the original award.
The tribunal may also correct errors on its own initiative. These mechanisms ensure the award's
accuracy and completeness while maintaining the finality and enforceability of the arbitral
award, which courts are bound to respect and enforce without alteration. In McDermott
International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181, court emphasized the limited
scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards, holding that courts should not interfere with
the merits of the award.

Enforcement Procedures: The party seeking enforcement must provide the duly authenticated
award and the arbitration agreement, and the court will then enforce it. To enforce an arbitral
award in Uganda, the party seeking enforcement must file an application before the High Court,
accompanied by the original award and the arbitration agreement. The court may also require
the party to provide additional documentation or evidence to support the enforcement
application. Once the court is satisfied that the award is enforceable, it will issue an order
enforcing the award, which can then be executed as if it were a court judgment. This
streamlined procedure ensures that arbitral awards are enforced efficiently and effectively.

Note that according to Rule 59 of the Arbitration rules of 2018 the arbitral award shall be final
and enforceable, with no review or modification by the Arbitrator. However, if the award
contains obvious errors such as miscalculations, clerical mistakes, or similar clear errors, a party
may request correction within one month after the award is issued. Upon receiving such a
request, the Arbitrator must rectify the error within one month, ensuring the award accurately
reflects their intention while maintaining the award's finality and enforceability.

No Right of Appeal: In general, there is no right of appeal against the High Court's decision in
matters related to setting aside or enforcing an arbitral award. The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act of Uganda provides that decisions of the High Court in arbitration matters are final, and
parties cannot appeal against them except in very limited circumstances. This finality is
essential in ensuring that arbitration awards are not delayed or undermined by prolonged
litigation. By limiting the right of appeal, parties can have confidence that arbitration awards
will be enforced or set aside with certainty and finality. In the case of Babcon Uganda Ltd V
Mbale Resort Ltd Civ. Appeal No. 06/2016 court highlighted that the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act limits the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal from High Court decisions
regarding applications to set aside arbitral awards. This emphasizes the Act's intention to
promote finality and efficiency in dispute resolution through arbitration.

Section 34 (2) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act sets out the limited instances where a
party can apply to set aside an “arbitral award.” An arbitral award is a determination on the
merits by an arbitration tribunal in an arbitration, and is analogous to a judgment in a court of
law. It is the final and binding decision made by a sole arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal, which
resolves, wholly or in part, the dispute submitted to his/its jurisdiction. It is the decision that
concludes a single and specific arbitration process, which puts an end to the dispute that has
been submitted to arbitration. Only an award on the merits can be the subject of Court’s
intervention under this provision. This was discussed in Kampala International University v
Housing Finance Company Limited Arbitration Cause 38 & 46 of 2024 [2025] UGCommC 19. In
this case Kampala International University challenged the enforcement of a Kenyan arbitral
award in Uganda, citing flaws in the arbitral process and public policy concerns. The High Court
of Uganda however upheld the award's enforceability, emphasizing the principle of finality.

Note that there's an aspect of Public policy. Public policy includes cases where arbitration is
used as a means to cover up corruption, money laundering, exchange control fraud or other
criminal activity. In some cases, though, the public interest in the finality of arbitration awards
will outweigh an objection to enforcement on the grounds that the transaction was “tainted”
by fraud as seen in Sinocore International Co Ltd v. RBRG Trading (UK) Ltd [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep
133. In that case it was found that even if public policy were engaged, any public policy
considerations were clearly outweighed by the interests of finality. The same was discussed in
the Ugandan case of Bemuga Forwarders Ltd V Sany International Development Ltd Misc
Application No. 99 of 2024.

In conclusion, the role of Ugandan courts in relation to arbitral awards is one of recognition and
enforcement, rather than review or modification. By upholding the finality of arbitration
decisions, courts ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the arbitration process, providing
parties with a reliable alternative dispute resolution mechanism. This approach underscores the
importance of adhering to the terms of arbitral awards, without judicial alteration, to maintain
consistency and predictability in commercial and legal dealings.