Wakilii

Seyani Brothers & Company Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (Civil Application No. 6 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2009] UGCA 60 · 2009 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out a civil appeal as incompetent
Decision
Application to strike out Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2004 dismissed; the appeal stands as competent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to strike out a civil appeal arising from a High Court order refusing to set aside an arbitral award. The court held that where the High Court makes an order on a matter brought to it under a statute other than the Civil Procedure Act — here the Arbitration and Conciliation Act — that order is appealable as of right under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless an appeal is specifically excluded by special legislation. Sections 76 and 77 are limited to orders made by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act. The appeal was therefore competent and the application to strike it out was misconceived.

Facts

On 12 August 2002 an arbitration award was made against the respondent, Simbamanyo Estates Ltd. The respondent applied to the High Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the award. The application was heard and dismissed by Justice Stella Arach-Amoko. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal against that order of dismissal (Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2004). The applicant, Seyani Brothers & Co. Ltd, then brought this application to strike out that appeal, contending it was incompetent because no appeal lies from an order refusing to set aside an arbitral award, the right of appeal being limited by section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act. The respondent argued the appeal was sustainable under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act, which covers orders made by the High Court under statutes other than the Civil Procedure Act.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal against a High Court order refusing to set aside an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  2. Whether the appeal sought to be struck out was sustainable under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act rather than restricted by sections 76 and 77.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Right of Appeal — Orders Made Under Statutes Other Than the Civil Procedure Act
Where the High Court makes an order on a matter brought to it under a statutory provision other than the Civil Procedure Act, that order is appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless an appeal is specifically excluded by special legislation.
Civil Procedure — Scope of Sections 76 and 77 — Orders Under the Civil Procedure Act
Sections 76 and 77 of the Civil Procedure Act, which enumerate appealable orders, are confined to orders passed by the High Court in exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act, and do not restrict appeals from orders made under other statutes.
Arbitration — Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Arbitral Award
An order of the High Court refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is appealable as of right under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being a statute that refers matters to the High Court otherwise than through the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.66
  • Civil Procedure Act s.76
  • Civil Procedure Act s.77
  • Civil Procedure Act s.81(b)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.34
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.28
  • Judicature Act s.10
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.1(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.45
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.82

Cases cited (6)

  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 60
  • B.D Billimoria & Another v T.D Billimoria [1962] EA 198
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Denis Bireije v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 31 of 2005)
  • Pius Niwagaba v Law Development Centre (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2006)
  • Joseph Bayego v The Registrar of Titles (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1994)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.