A Critical Analysis of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of Uganda
Shadat Ssemakula Mutyab Mohmeded, Ph.D. & Associate Dean
Gulu University, Uganda
International arbitration is based upon the parties ‘consent and not surprisingly the arbitration agreement is considered by leading commentators to be the foundation stone of international arbitration. Arbitration is a consensual process based the doctrine of party autonomy. It’s a truism of arbitration law that arbitration is a creature of party choice. This feature reinforces the contractual basis of arbitration and is reflected in the vasty majority of international conventions, national laws and institutional laws; therefore party autonomy is considered one of the most doctrines in international arbitration. Since parties agree that all current “compromis” and future “clause compromissoire” disputes should be solved through arbitral proceedings, there is no reason as to why all provisional measures emanating from arbitration agreement should not be granted by a competent arbitration tribunal. It should however, be noted that this is not always the case. Although party autonomy is the bible in arbitral proceedings, it has limitations. This article examines the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of Uganda, in support of the role played by doctrine of party autonomy in granting arbitral measures with a view of providing recommendations and reform where there gaps in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of Uganda. The main focus of this article is that the jurisdiction of the tribunal in Uganda should be given unlimited jurisdiction in granting interim measures during arbitral proceedings, and that courts should not intervene unless called upon for support.