Simba Properties Investment Co Ltd and Another v Robert Kirunda and Others [2025] UGCA 282

Court of Appeal · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Court of Appeal for a temporary injunction pending the determination of an intended appeal against a High Court decision

Decision

Application for a temporary injunction dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with costs to the respondents

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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 held that the disputes concerned mortgages connected to a facility agreement that was already the subject of arbitration, so by section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act no court could intervene in those matters. Because the High Court's dismissal arose from matters governed by that Act, no right of appeal lay against it. It followed that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for a temporary injunction pending the intended appeal. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicants had mortgaged six properties to Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership as collateral under a Mezzanine Term Facility Agreement. In the High Court they filed a suit and an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from selling or disposing of the mortgaged properties, contending the mortgagee they were acting for had been declared legally non-existent. The High Court (Mubiru, J.) found that the disputes related to the existence, validity, performance, breach or termination of the mortgages were matters connected with the facility agreement, which was already the subject of ongoing arbitration. He held that under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act no court could intervene, and dismissed both the application and the head suit. The applicants lodged a notice of appeal and sought a temporary injunction from the Court of Appeal restraining sale of the properties pending the intended appeal.

Issues

Whether a right of appeal lies to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's dismissal of an application and suit concerning matters governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction pending an appeal where no right of appeal exists against the impugned decision.

Orders

Application dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Arbitration — Extent of Court Intervention — Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Except as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, no court may intervene in matters governed by that Act, including disputes concerning the existence, validity, performance, breach or termination of agreements connected with a facility agreement that is the subject of ongoing arbitration.

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal — Jurisdiction Dependent on a Right of Appeal

The Court of Appeal cannot entertain an application for a temporary injunction pending appeal unless a right of appeal exists against the decision sought to be appealed; where no appeal lies at law, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the injunction.

Legislation cited (1)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.9

Cases cited (2)

Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd [2015] UGCA
Babcon Uganda Ltd v Mbale Resort Hotel Ltd [2017] UGSC 83

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.