The High Court Commercial Division has dealt a major blow to Oryx Energies (U) Limited after dismissing its attempt to overturn a nearly Shs1 billion arbitral award in favour of Oyster Energies Limited, ruling that the petroleum company had failed to prove any legal basis for interfering with the decision of an arbitrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a ruling delivered electronically on August 9, 2026, Acting Judge Susan Odongo dismissed Oryx’s application in its entirety and upheld the arbitral award as valid, final, binding and fully enforceable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court also ordered Oryx to pay the costs of the application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The dispute stems from a 2016 contract between the two companies for the bulk transportation of petroleum products from Kenya to destinations across Uganda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx, formerly trading as Oryx Oil Uganda Limited, had gone to the High Court seeking to set aside a January 30, 2026 final arbitral award issued by sole arbitrator Olivia Kyarimpa Matovu under the International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation in Kampala (ICAMEK).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The arbitrator had ordered Oryx to pay Oyster Shs982,794,407.62 for petroleum transportation services, dismissed Oryx’s counterclaim of Shs412,384,065, and awarded Oyster legal and reference costs of Shs38.5 million and US$2,764. The award also carried simple interest of 10 percent per annum from the date of filing until payment in full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court ruling now leaves Oryx facing enforcement of the award after its six-pronged legal challenge collapsed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The commercial battle began with a contract signed on November 25, 2016, under which Oyster was contracted to transport petroleum fuel products from Kenya to various destinations in Uganda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A dispute later emerged over outstanding transportation payments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oyster initially claimed Shs1.685 billion for transportation services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx rejected the claim, arguing that it had already settled the transportation fees through a fuel-credit offset arrangement contained in Clause 8.15 of their agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under that arrangement, Oryx argued, money owed to Oyster for transportation was supposed to be automatically transferred to offset fuel purchased by Oyster’s trucks at Oryx service stations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx therefore mounted a counterclaim of Shs412.38 million, representing what it said was fuel consumed on credit but not settled after the alleged offsets. Oyster disputed the existence of an enforceable separate fuel-supply arrangement and rejected Oryx’s offset claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The dispute eventually went to arbitration after the parties agreed in November 2023 to vary their dispute-resolution arrangement and have the matter determined under the ICAMEK Arbitration Rules 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following hearings that ran from February to July 2025, Arbitrator Matovu scrutinised the transportation records and ultimately awarded Oyster Shs982.79 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The arbitrator found that Oryx had failed to establish a basis for the claimed fuel offsets and concluded that Oyster remained indebted for the transportation services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court has now refused to reopen that factual and contractual battle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx launched its High Court challenge on six grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Among other things, it alleged that the arbitration award was inconsistent with Uganda’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, contrary to public policy, and that it had been denied a fair opportunity to present its case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The company also accused the arbitrator of improperly taxing Oyster’s costs, using the wrong subject-matter value to calculate legal fees and exhibiting evident partiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the heart of the procedural complaint was Oyster’s failure to file its written submissions within the original deadline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx argued that the arbitrator had effectively rewarded Oyster’s default by allowing it to file its submissions and rejoinder late and concurrently\u2014almost four months after Oryx had filed its own submissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx’s lawyers argued that this gave Oyster two opportunities to attack Oryx’s case while leaving Oryx without an equivalent opportunity to respond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Justice Odongo found that the record told a very different story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court noted that when the arbitrator dealt with the late submissions during a virtual meeting on September 4, 2025, Oryx’s lawyers were given an opportunity to respond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They declined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court therefore held that Oryx had voluntarily waived its right of reply and could not later turn that decision into a ground for attacking the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ruling states that the arbitrator had explicitly consulted both parties before allowing the late filing and had offered Oryx an opportunity to file responsive submissions, which its lawyers chose not to use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Justice Odongo consequently dismissed the allegations that Oryx had been denied a fair hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court emphasised that Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires parties to be treated equally and given a reasonable opportunity to present their cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But that right, the court found, had been respected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx had filed pleadings, participated in the scheduling conference, presented witnesses and cross-examined Oyster’s witness. The late written submissions did not introduce new evidence; they merely advanced legal arguments based on evidence that had already been presented and tested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court concluded that the arbitrator had acted fairly and transparently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the ruling is the court’s warning against using Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as a backdoor appeal against an arbitral decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Justice Odongo stressed that arbitration is founded on party autonomy and finality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Companies that voluntarily choose arbitration, the judge held, cannot subsequently ask the High Court to reconsider the merits of the dispute simply because they dislike the arbitrator’s interpretation of their contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court’s supervisory role is deliberately narrow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court said Section 34 is intended to address serious procedural or structural defects in an arbitration\u2014not provide a second opportunity to litigate the underlying commercial dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This principle proved fatal to several of Oryx’s grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judge specifically rejected the attempt to turn the fuel-offset dispute into a jurisdictional challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most contentious issues was the fuel consumed by Oyster’s trucks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx argued that Oyster’s fuel consumption amounted to Shs176.859 million and should have been deducted from the transportation claim under Clause 8.15 of the contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oryx maintained that the clause required the offset to happen automatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The arbitrator, however, found that there was no basis for the claimed offset. She considered the evidence, including bank cheques and ledger accounts, and concluded that the fuel had separately been paid for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That left the transportation debt at Shs986,931,936.47 before the final award figure and costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court refused to revisit that conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Justice Odongo held that whether the arbitrator correctly interpreted the contract or correctly evaluated the evidence was a matter of the merits of the dispute<\/strong>, not a question for the High Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court said the arbitrator had been specifically asked by the parties to determine whether Oyster had paid for the fuel and had reviewed the relevant financial evidence before reaching her conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, Oryx could not transform disagreement with the arbitrator’s findings into a jurisdictional error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oryx also attacked the arbitrator’s decision to tax Oyster’s costs within the final award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The company argued that the arbitrator had failed to follow procedures under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, including separate taxation proceedings and opportunities to challenge individual items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Again, the High Court rejected the argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court found that the parties had been directed under Procedural Order No. 13 to submit their respective bills of costs and supporting arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both parties complied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The arbitrator subsequently assessed the costs in the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Odongo held that an arbitral tribunal is not required to replicate every administrative procedure used by a court registrar when assessing costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court relied on the contractual powers given to the arbitrator and found that she had acted within her mandate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling states that the arbitrator’s assessment was transparent and based on the applicable framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oryx further argued that the arbitrator had inflated Oyster’s legal costs by using Shs986.931 million<\/strong> as the subject-matter value for calculating instruction fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The company wanted the alleged Shs176.859 million fuel offset deducted first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But because the arbitrator had already ruled that the fuel could not be offset, the High Court found no basis for calculating costs on a hypothetical lower figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge held that Shs986.931 million was the actual principal sum determined by the arbitrator and therefore a legitimate baseline for taxation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court described Oryx’s complaint as, in substance, an attempt to reopen the fuel-offset defence through a challenge to taxation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That was impermissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fifth ground was therefore dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oryx’s final and perhaps most serious allegation was that Arbitrator Matovu was biased in favour of Oyster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oryx pointed to the cumulative effect of the late filing decision, the procedural extensions, the taxation of costs and the rejection of its fuel-offset defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the High Court found no evidence of evident partiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court noted that the arbitrator had actually disclosed before accepting the appointment that her law firm, Ligomarc Advocates, had handled an assignment for Oryx more than 10 years earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She said she had not personally handled the matter or interacted with Oryx representatives, and neither party objected to her appointment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also found it significant that Oryx had participated in the arbitration for more than two years without challenging the arbitrator’s independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n More importantly, the arbitrator had subjected Oyster’s original claim of more than Shs1.685 billion to a rigorous audit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling notes that she rejected duplicate and unsupported delivery records and ultimately certified only Shs986.931 million<\/strong> as proved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the court, the arbitrator’s scrutiny actually cut nearly Shs700 million from Oyster’s original claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also noted that Oyster’s claimed legal costs were substantially reduced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Against that background, Justice Odongo found the allegation that the arbitrator had simply tilted the process towards Oyster unsustainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling carries significance beyond the Oryx-Oyster dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Odongo used the case to reinforce the principle that commercial arbitration is supposed to deliver finality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Parties who voluntarily choose arbitration cannot treat the High Court as an appellate forum whenever the result goes against them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court stressed that judicial intervention must remain tightly controlled if Uganda is to maintain arbitration as a credible mechanism for resolving commercial disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge warned that allowing routine procedural decisions or disagreements over contract interpretation to become grounds for setting aside awards would undermine the speed, efficiency and certainty that businesses seek when choosing arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That message is particularly important for companies entering complex commercial contracts containing arbitration clauses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The decision effectively tells commercial parties that the arbitrator they select is not merely a preliminary decision-maker whose conclusions can easily be taken to court for reconsideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unless one of the narrow statutory grounds for intervention is established, the award stands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining all six grounds raised by Oryx, the High Court found none sufficient to interfere with the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court therefore ordered that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling leaves intact the underlying award of Shs982.794 million, together with the 10 percent annual simple interest awarded by the arbitrator and the taxed costs of Shs38.5 million and US$2,764.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Oryx, the failed challenge means that an attempt to overturn the commercial award has instead reinforced the enforceability of the original arbitral decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Oyster, the ruling clears another major obstacle to recovery of the money awarded to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And for Uganda’s commercial arbitration regime, the judgment sends an unmistakable message: the High Court will not allow Section 34 to become a disguised appeal route for dissatisfied commercial litigants.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The High Court Commercial Division has dealt a major blow to Oryx Energies (U) Limited after dismissing its attempt to overturn a nearly Shs1 billion arbitral award in favour of Oyster Energies Limited, ruling that the petroleum company had failed to prove any legal basis for interfering with the decision of an arbitrator. In a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":27988,"featured_media":43283,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard"},"jnews_primary_category":[],"jnews_paywall_metabox":[],"jnews_override_counter":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[98],"tags":[31,10355,10356,119],"class_list":["post-43282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-featured","tag-oryx-energies","tag-oyster-energies-limited","tag-uganda-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/27988"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43282"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43284,"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43282\/revisions\/43284"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/43283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ugmirror.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Court rejects attack on legal costs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Shs986.9m figure that became another battleground<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Bias allegation also collapses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Arbitration warning to Ugandan businesses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Oryx loses on every front<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n