The Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act (Cap. 4) is inoperable as theRespondent was not a party to the Production SharingAgreements.3.
The Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Tax AppealsTribunal mandate cannot be fettered by a contractualprovision in an agreement.
The appellant was represented by Mr. Peter Kauma while therespondent was represented by Mr. Ali Sekatawa as lead counselassisted by Mr. Mathew Mugabi and Mr. Rodney Golooba. Bothcounsels first filed skeleton arguments and subsequently appearedto argue the same. Counsel for the appellant argued ground 2 firstfollowed by grounds 3 and 1.As regards ground 2, he submitted that section 2 of the ACA definesa party to an arbitration agreement to include
a person claiming through or under a party
. He submitted further that it also definesan arbitration agreement as;
to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined