Robert Kirunda and Another v Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Reference No. 6 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 281 · 2025 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to the full Court of Appeal from interim protective orders granted by a single Justice

Decision

Reference allowed; the single Justice's interim order application (CL-538 of 2022) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

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 full Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for an interim protective order (CL-538 of 2022). Having already determined, when dismissing the related temporary injunction application (CL-537 of 2022), that it had no appellate jurisdiction over the High Court's decisions because the underlying disputes were subject to arbitration under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court could grant no interlocutory relief in aid of the intended appeal. The reference was accordingly allowed and CL-538 of 2022 dismissed, with costs awarded here and below.

Facts

The respondent Simba companies owned properties mortgaged to Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership. The applicants, a firm of advocates and an auctioneer acting for the mortgagee, advertised the mortgaged properties for sale. The Simba companies filed High Court Civil Suit No. 424 of 2022 challenging the validity of the advertisement on the ground that the partnership had been declared legally non-existent in earlier proceedings, and sought a temporary injunction in HCMA No. 671 of 2022. The High Court (Mubiru, J.) dismissed both the application and the suit, holding that the disputes arose out of, or were connected with, the Mezzanine Term Facility Agreement and were subject to ongoing arbitration, so that under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act no court could intervene. The Simba companies lodged a notice of appeal and sought a temporary injunction (CL-537 of 2022) and interim protective orders (CL-538 of 2022). A single Justice granted the interim orders. The applicants referred that decision to the full court.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an application for an interim protective order (CL-538 of 2022) pending the hearing of a temporary injunction application, where the court had already found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the underlying High Court decisions by virtue of section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Orders

CL-538 of 2022 dismissed.
Reference allowed with costs here and below.

Key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Court Intervention — Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Where a dispute arises out of, relates to, or is connected with a matter that is the subject of an arbitration agreement, a court has no jurisdiction to intervene except as provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Relief — Jurisdiction as a Precondition

A court that lacks jurisdiction to entertain the substantive appeal cannot grant interlocutory or interim relief in aid of that appeal.

Civil Procedure — Reference from a Single Justice to the Full Court

A party dissatisfied with a decision of a single Justice of the Court of Appeal may refer the matter to a full panel of the court for rehearing.

Legislation cited (1)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.9

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.