Setting aside arbitral awards in Uganda

Uganda's arbitration legislation seeks to reconcile the finality of privately chosen dispute resolution with judicial protection against invalid consent, procedural unfairness and awards that offend fundamental legal standards. This article examines the grounds, procedure and remedies for setting aside arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap 5. It uses doctrinal analysis of legislation, Ugandan judicial decisions and selected comparative authorities, supported by UNCITRAL materials. The analysis distinguishes a challenge under section 34 from an agreed appeal on a question of law under section 38 and resistance to recognition or enforcement of a foreign award. It finds that the statutory architecture generally favours restrained intervention, but predictability is weakened by the breadth of the ground that an award is not in accordance with the Act, expansive language about perversity and illegality, and occasional overlap between review and appellate remedies. The one month challenge period also makes evidence of receipt and prompt procedural decisions especially important. The article proposes a structured approach requiring courts to identify the statutory ground, the relevant evidence, the distinction between invalidity and ordinary error, and the least disruptive authorised remedy. It recommends clearer judicial guidance, improved delivery and disclosure records, and targeted legislative review of limitation and appellate provisions. Effective supervision should preserve meaningful protection against defective arbitration while respecting the parties' choice of a final decision outside ordinary litigation.