THE AUTHOR:
Charles Gavamukulya, Executive Director at CG Engineering Consults.
This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
A Watershed Year for Ugandan Dispute Resolution
The year 2025 represents a landmark period in the evolution of Uganda‘s Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) framework, particularly concerning commercial arbitration.
The developments in 2025 were dominated by two powerful, converging forces: a major government-led legislative reform impacting the country’s public arbitral institution, and a series of definitive decisions from the Ugandan courts. These judicial decisions have vigorously reinforced the foundational principles of party autonomy, arbitral finality, and a stringent “hands-off” approach to court intervention.
Legislative Highlights: The Restructuring of Institutional Arbitration
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap 4 (now Cap 5) (“ACA”) was enacted to amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. It was also enacted to define the law relating to the conciliation of disputes. The statute provides for the procedure for conducting arbitral proceedings in Uganda as well as recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards and foreign awards under the New York Convention (1958) and International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) Convention (1965).
The Centre for Arbitration & Dispute Resolution (“CADER”) is a body that was established under Section 67(1) of the ACA. Section 69 of the ACA provides that CADER was to be governed by a council comprising the chairperson, an executive director, the president of the Commercial Court, three representatives from existing private sector organizations, and a representative of the Uganda Law Society.
CADER, under section 68 of Cap 4, was to play a number of roles, namely:
- acting as an appointing authority for arbitrators and conciliators;
- establishing a roster of competent and qualified arbitrators, making rules;
- administrative procedures and forms for the effective performance of arbitration; and
- qualifying and accrediting of arbitrators.
The single most consequential legislative action regarding arbitration in 2025 was the final implementation of the amendments to the ACA, which were presented in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2024. Assented to by the President of the Republic of Uganda on 18th December 2024, the operational changes became fully effective in 2025, fundamentally altering the institutional landscape of the CADER.
The Dissolution and Mainstreaming of CADER
Among the key amendments was the dissolution of CADER as an independent, self-accounting statutory body corporate and its re-establishment as a department in the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (“MoJCA”), retaining the CADER acronym for continuity. The rationale for this drastic institutional shift stemmed from persistent, well-documented governance and financial crises. CADER had often failed to operate with a legally constituted Governing Council, as required by Section 69 Cap 4 of the ACA. The High Court had also previously ruled against the Executive Director’s attempts to unilaterally exercise the Council’s powers under Section 69, rendering some administrative decisions, such as the appointment of arbitrators, ultra vires and subject to judicial review in International Development Consultants Ltd v. Jimmy Muyanja & Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 133 of 2018). This decision had the effect of stripping CADER of its power to act as an appointing authority under Section 2 of the Act. Additionally, despite its mandate to be self-sustaining, CADER was chronically underfunded by the Government for over two decades, relying on often-ephemeral external donor support. Reports also indicated failures in depositing collected arbitration fees into the Consolidated Fund, a critical violation of public financial management regulations.
The Judicial Response to the Institutional Vacuum
Following its dissolution and restructuring, CADER’s role as the statutory default appointing authority under Sections 11, 51, and 68 of the Act posed an immediate operational challenge, particularly for contracts in which the arbitration clause did not name an institution or the parties were unable to agree on the appointment. The High Court demonstrated remarkable pro-arbitration adaptability, refusing to let the institutional vacuum frustrate party autonomy. Faced with a valid arbitration agreement but a functionally unavailable appointing authority, the courts had to interpret the law judiciously to “breathe life” into the arbitration clause.
In cases such as LABX Scientific Ltd v. Katakwi District Local Government and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No.02 of 2025), the High Court proactively exercised its powers to appoint an alternative institutional body, such as the International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation in Kampala (“ICAMEK”). ICAMEK was issued with an instrument by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs on 23rd April 2019, which designated it as an appointing authority under the Act. This decisive action by the courts prevented the reform from becoming a tool for delaying dispute resolution and underlined the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the parties’ contractual intent to arbitrate. While the judicial response was swift and effective, the long-term success of the new institutional model hinges on the operational independence granted to the CADER department within MoJCA. The international arbitration community will closely monitor whether the department can now attract and manage high-profile cases, given the political and financial stability it lacked in its previous iteration.
Key Judicial Decisions: Upholding Finality and Independence
Beyond reacting to the legislative changes, the Ugandan Judiciary in 2025 continued its robust development of arbitration jurisprudence, notably reinforcing the finality of awards and setting high standards for arbitral fairness in both domestic and international contexts.
Arbitral Finality: The Restriction on Appeals
The Courts in Uganda have not allowed challenges to arbitration awards via the general avenues provided by the Civil Procedure Act. This decisive principle was affirmed in Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd and Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another (Civil Application No. 231 of 2025). The Court of Appeal of Uganda (“Court”) conclusively ruled that no inherent right of appeal exists from interim orders or decisions of the High Court during proceedings under the Act, effectively closing any potential procedural loophole that allowed parties to frustrate the process through multiple appellate layers. Further to this, in Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd and Others v. Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another (Civil Application No. 1295 of 2023), the Court held that an appeal against interlocutory orders in arbitration proceedings does not lie to the Court of Appeal unless expressly provided by law. These rulings cement the doctrine that parties who choose arbitration inherently waive their right to the extensive judicial review available in civil litigation. The decision is vital for international commerce, as it guarantees that an arbitral process, once initiated, cannot be indefinitely stalled by domestic procedural appeals.
Arbitrator Independence and the Appearance of Bias
The Courts dedicated significant attention to reinforcing the integrity and independence of the arbitral process, particularly focusing on the grounds for setting aside a domestic award under Section 34 of the ACA, specifically regarding impartiality.
In China Railway 18th Bureau (Group) Co. Ltd v. Tumo Technical Services Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No.72 of 2025), the High Court held that an arbitrator has an absolute, continuing duty to disclose any past, present, or prospective relationship, professional connection, or financial interest with any of the parties, their counsel, or the subject matter of the dispute. In Kenlloyd Logistics (U) Limited v. Fratch AG (Miscellaneous Cause 78 of 2023), the High Court set aside an arbitral award citing the arbitrator’s abdication of duty when he failed to ensure a fair and complete record and conducted himself in a manner raising suspicion of partiality. As such, the standard for bias is not restricted to proof of actual bias which is notoriously difficult to prove.
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Pro-Creditor Stance
Uganda’s commitment to the New York Convention remains unwavering, cementing its position as a highly enforcement-friendly jurisdiction. The 2025 judicial approach was characterized by a strict and narrow interpretation of the Convention’s defence grounds, particularly the elusive “public policy” exception. The landmark High Court decision in Kampala International University v. Housing Finance Company Limited (Arbitration Causes No. 0038 and 0046 of 2024 (Consolidated)) (“Kampala International University”) in granting enforcement of a foreign award under the New York Convention, reiterated a high-water mark for a public policy challenge. The High Court held that the public policy defence against enforcement of arbitral awards is reserved only for circumstances where enforcement would violate the country’s most fundamental principles of justice and morality, constitutional law, or national interests. The High Court reaffirmed that Ugandan courts could not review the merits of an arbitral award, thereby emphasizing the principle of finality.
A crucial pro-creditor outcome of the Kampala International University case was the High Court’s explicit confirmation of the principle of parallel enforcement. The court permitted the creditor to pursue enforcement of the award in Uganda even where the award had already been recognized as a judgment in Kenya, provided the underlying debt remained unpaid. This principle prevents debtors from using foreign judgment recognition as a shield against asset tracing and enforcement in Uganda, thereby empowering creditors to efficiently pursue debtor assets across multiple jurisdictions.
Procedural Clarity: Foreign Entities and Locus Standi
A significant procedural clarification that directly benefits international trade and finance was delivered by the Court of Appeal in 2025 regarding the legal capacity of foreign entities to enforce contractual rights, including arbitration clauses.
In Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership v. Uganda Registration Services Bureau and Others (Civil Appeal No. 263 of 2022) (“Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership”), the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court ruling that had previously caused concern among international lenders. The Appellate Court held that a foreign partnership or financial entity that merely provides a loan facility or invests capital in a Ugandan company is not required to register locally under the Partnership Act or Business Names Registration Act to possess the locus standi (legal standing) to enforce its contractual agreements, including an arbitration clause or a resultant award. The Court correctly reasoned that advancing a loan from abroad does not constitute “carrying on business” within the meaning of the registration statutes. This ruling successfully removes a potentially devastating procedural hurdle for cross-border transactions and reinforces the sanctity of international contractual obligations in Uganda.
Conclusion
The year 2025 was transformative for arbitration in Uganda. On the legislative front, the government’s decision to restructure CADER has had an initial disruption, which has caused an institutional vacuum for the appointment of arbitrators under various contracts. However, the immediate judicial response to the CADER dissolution was commendable, upholding the sanctity of arbitration agreements even in the absence of an institutional framework.
The Ugandan courts continue to serve as strong guardians of the arbitral process. The firm restriction on appeals, the strict test for arbitrator independence, and the pro-enforcement stance toward foreign awards, particularly the narrow application of the public policy defence in Kampala International University, provide the predictability and finality that international investors demand. The clarification of locus standi for foreign lenders in the Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership case further removes a major procedural obstacle to cross-border finance. The sole major area requiring legislative attention is the post-award interim relief gap. As Uganda seeks to establish itself as the premier East African seat for arbitration, this final refinement of the ACA will be necessary to fully align the jurisdiction with international best practice and complete the robust, pro-arbitration ecosystem evidenced by the legislative and judicial activity of 2025.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Charles Gavamukulya is a PhD student in Construction Management at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He is a civil engineer and specialist in construction contracts, claims, and dispute resolution. He holds an MSc in Construction Law and Dispute Resolution from Leeds Beckett University (UK), an MSc in Civil Engineering and a BSc in Civil Engineering both from Makerere University, Uganda. A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators(“FCIArb”), Charles is a certified mediator, adjudicator, and arbitrator. He is the Executive Director of CG Engineering Consults and currently serves as the Chairperson of the CIArb Uganda Young Members Committee.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
