A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT OF UGANDA

Abstract

International arbitration is based upon the parties „consent2 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.3 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.4 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.5 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.6 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.